Defendant\u2019s presence at a drug house when another search warrant was served is admissible under 404(b). United States v. Holmes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55926 (E.D. La. Mar. 26, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s performance on SFSTs was probable cause for his arrest for driving under the influence of marijuana. United States v. Garner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54524 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 4, 2025), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53568 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 24, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stone is not an evidentiary test. \u201cPetitioner argues that this Court is not required to apply Stone v. Powell to his claim because the \u2018factual findings of the state court [were] not supported by reasonable evidence.\u201d Filing No. 20 at 12. Petitioner provides no support for this position and the Court is bound by Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedent. The record demonstrates that Petitioner was able to raise his Fourth Amendment claims and there is no evidence of an “unconscionable breakdown” in the system. Accordingly, Claim One is dismissed.\u201d Valentine v. Jeffreys, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55574 (D. Neb. Mar. 25, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s presence at a drug house when another search warrant was served is admissible under 404(b). United States v. Holmes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55926 (E.D. La. Mar. 26, 2025).* Defendant\u2019s performance on SFSTs was probable cause for his arrest … Continue reading