Defendant backed into his driveway and that was curtilage. The police had neither a warrant nor exigent circumstances to come and look at his car to justify a plain view of an open container than led to finding a gun. United States v. Odom, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213316 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 21, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Inevitable discovery applied here because defendant\u2019s vehicle was subject to tow when the police decided to conduct a dog sniff. United States v. Benavides, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213358 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Ohio, ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be made on appeal if they could be. Here, it came up post-conviction, but the court concludes it was available all along, so it\u2019s now barred by res judicata. State v. Allen, 2026-Ohio-3691 (3d Dist. Sep. 21, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant backed into his driveway and that was curtilage. The police had neither a warrant nor exigent circumstances to come and look at his car to justify a plain view of an open container than led to finding a gun. … Continue reading