Transferring funds about to be seized by the feds stated facts upon which defendant could be convicted of obstruction of justice and interfering with a seizure. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1512(c)(2) & 2232(a). United States v. Sutley, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8257 (S.D. Ala. February 2, 2007).<\/p>\n
Asking for a passenger’s green card during a valid traffic stop is not unreasonable. United States v. Pasillas-Castanon, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8268 (N.D. Okla. February 5, 2007):<\/p>\n
Further, the Court finds that Officer Hickey’s requesting and obtaining Fabian Pasillas-Castanon green card did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. The officers properly sought and obtained identification documents from the occupants. In United States v. Esparsa-Mendoza<\/em>, 386 F.3d 953, 958 (10th Cir. 2004), the Tenth Circuit states, “police officers may approach citizens, ask them questions and ask to see identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Further, the Court finds that defendant Fabian voluntarily produced his green card and gave it to Officer Hickey as his identification.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Similarly, ICE officers could conduct a knock and talk for information about green card status under 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1357(a)(1). United States v. Casteneda-Arrellano, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8199 (W.D. N.C. February 1, 2007).<\/p>\n
\u00a7 2255 habeas petitioner could not raise Fourth Amendment claim in a successor petition that had already been denied just by arguing it differently. Miramontes v. United States, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8127 (E.D. Cal. January 25, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Habeas claim of ineffective assistance for failure to pursue a search claim was not reached where the petitioner failed to provide a factual basis for the claim. Haygood v. United States, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8166 (D. Conn. January 23, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading