Defendant stated enough to get a suppression hearing, and the government\u2019s argument that inevitable discovery applies is fact dependent and a hearing has to be held. United States v. Shabazz, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97521 (M.D. Pa. July 12, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the stop of the car because the officer that stopped him didn\u2019t see anything but relied on another officer\u2019s observation. He was also not ineffective for not challenging the search of the passenger\u2019s purse since defendant had no standing in her purse. Graham v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97418 (C.D. Ill. July 12, 2012).*<\/p>\n
There were exigent circumstances for a protective sweep of the premises, and it was alternatively justified by consent. United States v. Moten, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97479 (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading