There is normally no expectation of privacy in a stolen vehicle, but the Indiana Court of Appeals finds standing in a locked metal box defendants had in a stolen vehicle, analogizing it to a purse which has been left in a stolen vehicle during a stop. State v. Winkle, 859 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. App. January 17, 2007).<\/p>\n
Chiropractor’s claim he was searched before a state chiropractic board hearing was barred by the statute of limitations because the claim ran from when the search occurred, not when he learned it was illegal. Pearce v. Romeo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3100 (N.D. Cal. January 3, 2007).*<\/p>\n
In a habeas ineffectiveness claim on a search issue, the court necessarily must get to the merits of the search issue. Here, there was reasonable suspicion for the stop, and the petitioner would fail on the merits of the issue, so counsel was not ineffective. Palacios v. Burge, 470 F. Supp. 2d 215 (E.D. N.Y. 2007)*:<\/p>\n
“Where defense counsel’s failure to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim competently is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness, the defendant must also prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice.” Kimmelman v. Morrison,<\/em> 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Strip search class action failed: Jail inmates received were stripped down to their underwear for a clothing search, and transferees from other jails or courts were strip searched on arrival. These were reasonable. Sutton v. Hopkins County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3150 (W.D. Ky. January 11, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading