\u201cIn sum, defendant is not entitled to credit against his sentence for time spent under home confinement as a condition of his bail release. Further, defendant’s time spent on home confinement did not constitute a seizure of his person under the Fourth Amendment.\u201d United States v. Severino, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1108 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CoA denied. Defendant didn\u2019t allege enough to show an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for anything, including his Fourth Amendment claim. \u201cThe police completed three controlled purchases of narcotics from Whittingham, which enabled them to obtain a search warrant. Upon executing the search warrant, police recovered suspected heroin, firearms, ammunition, narcotics paraphernalia, and nearly $25,000 in cash. With these facts and no realistic defense, \u2018a reasonable defendant would not decide to throw a hail Mary\u2019 at trial. Id. So, reasonable jurists could not debate the district court\u2019s rejection of this ineffective-assistance claim.\u201d Whittingham v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 66 (6th Cir. Jan. 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[W]e believe that the totality of the circumstances illustrate that officers had probable cause to believe that appellant operated the vehicle while under the influence of narcotics and, thus, had probable cause for the blood draw and to arrest appellant.\u201d State v. Linek, 2024-Ohio-6127 (4th Dist. Dec. 20, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIn sum, defendant is not entitled to credit against his sentence for time spent under home confinement as a condition of his bail release. Further, defendant’s time spent on home confinement did not constitute a seizure of his person under … Continue reading