## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1777 A DR I AN T. J OH NS ON, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 07- 01146

—Mi ch ael H . M ihm, Judge .
A RGUED O CT OB ER 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AY 14, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd W I L L I A MS, Circ uit Ju dg es . R OV NER, Ci r c u i tJ udg e . Adr i anT. J o hns o n was c o nvi cted o fposs es sio n w i th i ntent to dist ribute a t l eas t 5 0 g r a m s o fc r a c kc o c a i ne i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. He h a d two p r i o r dr ug co nv i c t i o ns a nd , acco rdi ngl y, r ecei ved a m andator y l i fe s entence under 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (A )( ii i)
. J ohnson bro ught a m oti on in the di str i ct c ourtto vacat e hi s s en te nce pursuant to 28 U
. S. C. § 2 255, wh i ch2 N o. 08

- 1777 th e di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed. Tha t m o ti o n a ss er te d tha t he w as d en ied effe c tiv e ass ist an c e of c ou n se l b ec a u s e h is att or ney, bas ed on a m i sapprehensi on of the l aw , f ai l ed to see k s up press i on o fthe cra ck c oca i ne attr i al

. H e a l so conte nd ed that hi s a tto rney r e nd er ed i nef f ecti ve ass istance i n f ai l i ng to chal l enge hi s ini ti alse i zure by th e p olic e. See gen erally F uller v . U nited Sta tes , 39 8 F
. 3d 644, 648 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( no t i ngtha ti ne ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a nc e cl ai m s may pr o pe r l y b e b r o ught i n a § 2 2 5 5 mot i o n re gar dles s ofwh ethertheyco uld have bee n pursued on d irect app eal).

I. The i nci dent r esul ti ng i n J ohnson’ s a rr estand convi cti on to o kpl ac e o n the ni g hto fF eb r ua r y 2 2, 2 00 6. J o hns o n, dr i vinga v eh i cl e he b or r o wed fr o m a r el at i ve , pa r k ed th e ve hi cl e o n a b l o cki n a n a r ea tha t w as con sider ed a hi g hcr i m e hi g h- den si tya r ea a nd ther efo r e su bj ec t to e nha nc ed po l i ce pa tr o l s. Two off ic er s who wer e pat r o l l i ng th e a re a o b se rv ed h im em er ge fro m t h e c ar an d w alk toward an a partm ent b uil ding. The o ffi c er s t est i fi ed that he he l d i n h i s ha nd a b r o wn ba gtha t appe ar ed to c o ntai n open al cohol

. The offi cer s w atched as J ohnson pro ceeded up th e ap ar tm ent s tai rs to the seco nd fl oo r, at w h ich tim e h e k n oc ke d on a d oo r for ap p ro x im at ely 30 seco nd s. Recei vi ng no re sponse, J ohnson then pr epa r ed to de sc en d the stai r s, aba ndo ni ngthe b aga nd its conte nt s on th e secon d floor land ing. T he officers appr o ac he d J o hns o n a nd o r der ed hi m t o r et r ie ve the b a g . Whe n he di d so , the y c o nfi r med tha ti tc o nt a i ne d aN o. 08

- 1777 3 bo tt l e o fb ee r tha t was a ppr o xi m at ely t wo- thi r ds ful l a nd sti l l co l d. A checkf oro utsta nd i ng warr ants prove d negati ve, and the offi cer s deta in ed Jo hnson to wri te a ci tat i on f orthe al coholvi ol ati on. W hi l e wri ti ng tha t c itati on, they ra n a c o mput e r c he c ko n J o hn s o n a nd r e t r a c e d h i s s t e ps to the c ar . W hen J ohnson prot ested t h at they need not se ar chthe a r ea b ec au se he ha d n o t to ss ed an y th i nga l o ng th atpa th, Offi ce r Ede l m ana sk ed i fthe r e was a ny th i ng i n the carthathe s houl d know about. J ohnson re sponded thatther e w as not, and Ed el m an then questi oned J o hns o n a s to whethe r he c ar ed i fEde l m ans ea r ch ed th e c a r . Ac c o r di ngt o the o ffi c e r s , J o hn s o n re spo nd e d, “ Go ah ea d. ” Offi ce r Ede l m ans ta te d tha t befo r e en te r i ngthe vehicle h e obse rv ed by fl ashl i ght what appeare d to be a ba g o fm ar ij uana abo ve the d riv er ’ s v i sor . U pon enter i ng th e vehi cl e, he found a bl ack sto cki ng ca p w i th a pl ast i c ba g o fwh at appeared t o be a l ar ge ro ck ofcr ack coca i ne i nsi de. I n additi on, i n the back sea t he disc ove re d a d i g i t a l s c a l e a n d t wo b o x e s o fp l a s t i c s a n d wi c h b a g s . At th atpo i nt, J o hns o n was b ec om i ngdi sr upt i ve a nd the o ffi cer s su bdue d hi m a nd pl ac ed hi m unde r a r r es t. The sea rch ofthe vehi cl e i s the b as is of the i neffecti ve ass i stance cl ai m befor e thi s co urt.

II. J ohnson ar gues that he was denie d the e ffecti ve ass i stance ofco unselwh en hi s a tto rneyf ai l ed to fi l e a m oti on to su ppr es s th e cr ac k co ca i ne ba se d o n th e unco ns ti tu
ti onalse ar ch ofthe c ar . H is defense counselpursued othe r pretr i alm oti ons, i nclu d ing a m oti on t o supp re ss4 N o. 08

- 1777 and m oti on i n l i m i ne ai m ed at kee ping hi s al coholposs essi on a nd incr i m i nati ng st ate m ents out ofev i dence. Despit e J ohnso n ’ s r equest, however, hi s a tto rneychos e n otto file a m ot ion to su p p re ss th e c ra c k c oc ain e e vidence f ound in the s ear ch ofthe vehi cl e. I n o rd er to succe ed on a cl ai m o fi neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fc o uns el, J o hns o n mustde m o ns tr at e bo thde fi ci en t perf or m ance a nd prej ud ice. S peci fi cal l y, he m ust s how th atde fen se c o uns el ’ s per f o r m an ce fel l “ o ut si de th e wi de r an g e o fpr o fes si o na l l y c o m pet en t as si st an ce” a nd

“ t h e r e is a reason able prob abili ty th at, but for coun sel’s unpr o fes si o na l error s, the r es ul t o fthe pr o ce eding w oul d have be en di ffer ent. ” Stric kl and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U
. S. 66 8, 69 0, 69 4 ( 1984 ) ; A llen v . Ch a nd ler, 55 5 F
. 3d 596, 60 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); B ynum v. Le m m on , 56 0 F
. 3d 678, 68 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. J o hns o n a ss er ts tha t the po l i ce ha d no const i tuti onal l y- val i d basis to se ar ch the car, and that a m oti on to supp re ss coul d hav e re sul ted i n th e s up pressi on o fthe f rui ts ofthats earch. Because that sea rch y i el ded the c r ac kc o ca i ne whi chf o r m ed th e ba si s o fthe ch ar g e an d the c en te r pi ec e o fthe g o ve rnm en t’ s ca se , the deci si on notto se ek supp re ssi on was a cri ti calo ne.

A
. I n a na l y zing th e de fi ci en t per f o r m an ce pr o ngo fthe tes t, we consi der whether the deci si on t o f or ego a m o ti o n t o s uppr es s was a r ea so nabl e tr i als tr at egy . Co nd u c t o f co u n se l attria l is d efic ien t i fitis u n re as on ab le u n d er p re va i lin g p ro fes sio n al n or m s. Polev. Randolph , 57 0 F. 3d 922, 93 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. W e hav e r epeated lyN o. 08

- 1777 5

re cogni zed, however, tha t a deci si on o ftr i alco unsel base d on a m i sapprehensi on o fl aw m ay const i tute obj ec tiv ely u n re as on ab le p e rfo rm an c e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Spence, 450 F.3d 69 1, 69 4-6 95 (7t h C ir. 20 0 6 ); B y n u m, 560 F. 3d at 684- 85. I n an affi d avit su bm itted to th e d istri ct cou rt, J ohn son ’s d e fe n s e a t t o r n e y a tth e o r i g i na l tr i a l, J o s e p h M. Borsb er ry, acknow l edged thatJ ohnson w anted hi m to fi l e a m o ti o n t o s uppr es s th e ev i den ce based on th e Four th A m endm ent v i ol ati ons. H e s tat ed that he chos e not to fi l e s uch a m oti on be cause the m oto r vehi cl e in w hi ch the coca i ne was found w as al l ege dlyo w ned by o ne o fM r. J ohnson’ s r el ati ves. Si nce M r. J ohnson did not have an own er shi p i nter est i n the m oto r vehi cl e o r a r eas onabl e e xpectati on o f pri vacy, Ifel t i t s houl d be a bet ter tr ial str ate gy to u se th e fa c t t h at M r. Joh n s o n d i d n otow n th e v eh icle as a n i ss ue i n t r i al

. I n my o pi ni o n the r e was no F o ur thAm en dm en t vi o l at i o n in s ea r ch i ngthe vehi cl e be cause ofa l ack ofr eas onabl e e xpec ta tion of privacy in the veh icl e of an oth er. A s the st ate m ent b y Bor sber rym ak es c l ear, the deci si on not to fi l e the m oti on t o sup p re ss w as bas ed on the be l i ef that J ohnson l ac ke d a re aso nabl e e xpectati on o fpri vacy i n the v eh i cl e be ca us e he was n ot the o wner . The dis tr ict co urt, i n denyi ng the § 2255 m oti on, r epeate d that propos i ti on. The co u rt als o denie d the ce rt i fi cate o f appeal abi l i ty

— w hi ch w e ul ti m ate l y g ra nted

— as to that and al l o theri ssues . Both Borsb er ryand the dist ri ct cour t, however, er re d i n ass ess i ng J ohnson’ s abi l i ty to ch al l en g e th e se ar ch

.6 N o. 08

- 1777 It is w ell-e st ab lish ed th at a d riv er o f a b or ro w ed ve h icle m aye st ab l i sha r ea so nabl e ex pec ta ti o n o fpr i vac y in a ve hi cl e ev en th ou gh tha t dr i ve r i s no t th e o wnero fthe ve h icle

. SeeU nite d State s v. G arci a , 897 F. 2d 14 13 , 1418-1 9 (7t h C ir. 19 90 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 447 F. 3d 1191 , 11 97- 98 (9t h C ir. 20 06 ); U nite d State s v. Soto , 98 8 F. 2d 1548 , 15 53 (10th Cir. 1993); U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 82 1 F
. 2d 546, 54 8- 49 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 7 )
. I n d e t e r mi n i n gwh e th e r s u c h a n o now n er m ay cla im a p riv ac y in te re st in a ca r th ath e is dri vi ng, co urts co nsi der tw o facto rs : wh etherthe dri ver m an i fe s t e d a s u bj e c t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t he a r e a s e a r c he d; a nd wh e the rtha te xp e c t a t i o n o fpri vacy i s o ne thatso c iety would fi nd o bj ecti vel y r eas onabl e. U nit e d S t at e s v. Am aral

- Est r ada , 50 9 F
. 3d 820, 82 6- 27 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Co ur ts ha ve r epe atedly r ec o g ni ze d the r i g ht ofa dri verto as ser t a Fo urth Am endm ent r i gh t t o be f r e e f r o m u n r e a s o n ab l e s e a r c h e s o f a v e h i c l e whe r e th e dri veri s o perat i ng tha t v ehi cl e w ith the perm i ssi on o f th e o w n er . G arci a , 897F.2d at14 18 -19 ; S oto , 98 8 F
. 2d at 15 53; M iller, 82 1 F
. 2d at 548- 49; s e eal s o Thom as , 447 F. 3d at 1197

- 98 ( hol ding that eve n a dri ver n ot lis ted as an author i zed dri verf ora re ntalcarco uld nev er th el ess have an expecta ti on o fpri vacyi fgi ven per m i ssi on t o u se th e c ar by an au th or ize d d riv er ). In law fu lly po sse ss i nga nd c o nt r o l l i ngthe c ar, the dr i ve r ha s th e r i g htt o e xc l ude o th er s whi ch c orre spo nds wi tha n e xpec t a t i o n o fp r i v a c y . S i mi l a r t o a n o wn e r d r i v i n gthe car, the author i zed driv er m ay have an expecta ti on o f p riv ac y in th at circ u m st an c e. T h e in q u iry is a fa c t s p ec ific o ne , ho wev er, b ec au se a s we r ec o g ni ze d i n Am aral

- Est r ada , so me f a c t s ma y e v i s c e r a t e a nyi mpl i c a t i o n o fa s ubj e cti veN o. 08

- 1777 7 expectat i on o fpri vacy . I n that case , Am ar al

- Estra da w as op er ati ng the carf orthe pu rpos e o ftr anspor ti ng co ntra
band such as U .S. curre ncy, and hi s e xpectati on was that o th e r s wo u l d e n t e r th e c a r, t a k i n g a n d l e a v i n g i t e ms th er ein
. Am aral

- Est r ada , 509 F. 3d at 826-27. I n th o s e c ircum sta nces, ther e was no su b j ecti ve expectat i on o f pri vacyand ther ef or e he coul d not c h allenge the se ar ch of t h e v eh icle

. Id. A s th e dri vero fthe vehi cl e bo rr owed fro m hi s r el ati ve, J o hn s o n c o ul d h a v e s o ughtt o e s t ab l i s h tha t h e h a d a re aso nabl e e xpectatio n o fpri vacyi n the vehi cl e a nd that the s ear ch vi ol ate d t h e Four th A m endm ent. The f acts r e l a t i ngt o thi s i s s ue a r e o fco ur s e s c a r c e i n the r e c o r d, because it w as neverexp l or ed at tr i al

. N eve rthel ess , tho se f ac ts tha t ar e pr es en t do no th i ngt o c as t do ubton th e ex ist en c e o ft h a t rea so n ab le e x p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y a n d in f act supp or t a fi nd i ng tha t Johnson e xerci sed poss ess i on an d c o nt r o l o fthe v eh i cl e in a manne r e st ab l i sh i ng ano bj ec ti ve l y re as o nabl e ex pec ta ti o n o fpr i va cy . The ev id en c e in d ica te s t h at Joh n so n b or ro w ed th e v eh icle f r o m a re l a t i v e a n d th a th e wa s th e d r i v e r a n d s o l e o c cup an t of th e veh icl e d uring th e relevan t tim e pe riod. T he re i s no i nd i cati on that he opened the vehi cl e t o gener al acces s byo theri nd i vi d ual s s uch as w oul d defea t that expectat i on o fpri vacy . An ev i den tiary h ea r i ngo n the i ss ue woul d m ak e th e i ss ue c l ea r . F o r o urpur po se s, i t i s en o ugh thatb as ed o n a m i sapprehensi on o fthe appli cabl e l aw , hi s a tto rney c h os e n ot to fi l e a m oti on that co uld have bee n dis positi ve o fthe c as e ag ains t J o hns o n.8 N o. 08

- 1777 Borsb er ryi denti fi ed a r ela ted r eas on f orthe deci si on i n hi s a ffi davi t, st ati ng tha t he bel i eve d that i t w as a b et te r d efe n se attria l for Joh n so n to cla im a lac k of k n ow ledge that the drugs were i n the ve hi cl e. Bor sber ryal so sta ted thati n a m oti on t o supp re ss the c ourtw ou ld have to m ake a cre dibi l i ty deter m i nati on be tw een the pol i ce and Jo h n son, and that J ohnson “w oul d have a bet ter chance with a j ury tr i alo n the f actuali ss u es than w i th a j udg e o n the l eg ali ss ue s. ” The g o ve r nm en t ta kes up th i s ma n t r a , a r g u i n gth a tth e d e c i s i o n n o tt o fi l e t he m oti on was a tact i calo ne, i nvol vi ng a ch oic e between tw o i nconsi ste nt posi ti ons: the ass er ti on o fa pri vacy i nter esti n the carand i ts conte nt s ve rs u s the cl ai m that J o hnson ha d no kno wl edg e o fthe c ar ’ s co nt en ts a nd no des i r e to p rotectthe m fr o m a ny o ne . Acco r di ngt o the gov er nm ent, thati s a n obj ecti vel y r eason able basi s for re fusi ng to fi l e the m oti on, and i t doe s no t m att erwh ether that w as defe nse c ounsel ’ s s ubj ecti ve re aso ni ng. There ar e tw o probl em s w i th that l i ne ofr eas oni ng. Fi rs t, i t i s pr emi se d o n a f al se di l emm a bec au se the r e i s no in h er en t c o n f l i c t b et w ee n a tr ial d efe n se ba se d on h is l ac ko fkno wl edg e th atthe d rugs w er e i n the c ar, a nd a m oti on t o su pp re ss conte nd i ng tha t the se ar ch vi ol ate d h is re as on ab le e x p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y in th e v eh icle . I t is sim p ly i nc o nc ei vabl e th at i n o r der to as se r t a cl ai m of a r ea so nabl e ex p ect at i o n o fpr i va cyi n a n a r ea, a de fen dan t n e e d s t o d e mo n s t r a t e c o mp l e t e kn o wl e d g e o fa l l i t e ms wi th in tha t ar ea . S ucha pr emi se woul d e vi sc er at e an y r e a s o n ab le e x p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y in a h om e, as it w ou ld vani sh i fany i tem s were f ound in the ho m e ofwh i ch th e d e fe n d a n twa s u n a wa r e . T h e t e s ti s wh e th e r theN o. 08

- 1777 9 defen dan t ha d a s ubj ec ti ve e xpe ct ati o n o fpr i va cyi n the ve h icle w h ich is ob j ec tiv ely rea so n ab le. SeeAm aral

- Est r ada , 50 9 F .3d at82 6-2 7; G arci a , 89 7 F
. 2d at 1418

- 19. A ta n e v i de nt i a r y h e a r i ng, J o hn s o n c o ul d h a v e e sta bl i shed that he had author i zed poss ess i on o fthe ve h icle an d a n int en t to e xc l ud e o th er s f r o m i t. W e ha ve f o und that such an o bj ecti vel y r eas onabl e e xpectati on ca n be es tabl i sh ed bythe dr i ve r o fa b o r r o wed car, a nd have not re quir ed a s how i ng that t h e author i zed dri ver be c apabl e o fa cc ura tely i nv en to r y i ngthe v eh i cl e’ s co ntents
. J ohnson c ou l d argue thathe pos ses sed such a n ex p ecta tion of p rivacy even thou ghhe w a s un aw are that the dr ug s h ad b een c oncea l ed w i thi n the car . There

f or e, Bor sber rywas not re quir ed to choo se between hi s p r e fe r r e d t r i a l s t r a t e g y a nd a m oti o n t o s up press

—bo tho pti ons c o ul d ha ve b ee n ful l y pur su ed wi th

ou t one ad versely im p actin g the other. I n part, Bor sber ry ’ s r el uctance to p ursue the m oti on appea rs t o be b ase d on a m i sund er sta nd i ng o fano ther l eg alpr o po si ti o n. Bo r sb er r y was a ppr eh en sive tha t th e cour t’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati on i n a m oti on t o supp re ss w ou ld a d v e r s ely im p ac t Jo h n so n ’s d efe n se in a j u ry tria l. Insh or t, h e w as co n c er n ed w ith th e im p ac t t h at te s t im on y in th e m ot ion t o s u p p re ss w ou ld h av e o n th e t ria l. The S upr eme Co ur t i n Sim m o ns v . U n i t e d S ta tes , 39 0 U. S
. 3 77, 3 94 ( 19 68 ) , ho wev er, made cl ea r tha t “whe n a defe nd ant t est i fi es i n supp ort of a m oti on t o supp re ss ev i den ce o n F o ur thAm en dm en t g r o unds , hi s tes ti m o ny m ay not ther eafter b e ad m i tte d against hi m attr i alo n the i ssue ofguil t unl ess he m ake s no o bj ecti on. ” See a lso10 N o. 08

- 1777 O w ens v. U nited Sta tes , 387 F.3d 607, 608-09 (7th C ir. 2004). A ccord ingly, any tes tim ony by John son i n su p p ort of a m oti on t o supp re ss coul d not hav e be en i ntro du ced aga i nst hi m attr i al, and that con c er n was not a pro per basi s o n w hi ch to f or ego the m oti on t o supp re ss. Be c a us e the de c i s i o n no tt o p ur s ue the F o ur thAmen dm en t c h all enge i n a m oti on t o supp re ss w as base d up on a m i sund er sta nd i ng o fthe appli cabl e l aw and not base d on a r eas onable t ri alst ra tegy, J ohnson has e stabl i shed a g enui ne i ssue of m at er i alf act as to w hetherhi s t ri al counsel ’ s per f or m ance was defi ci ent under th e Si xth A m endm ent.

B. T h e r em ain in g iss u e in th e in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e c laim i s whethe r J o hns o n w as pr ej udi ce d b y tha t defi ci en t pe r f o r man c e . I ti s c l e a r tha t a succ e s s fulmo t i o n t o s up pr es s woul d ha ve de st r o y ed th e ca se a g ains t J o hns o n. The is su e, how eve r, i s whether that m oti on would have be ens ucc es sful

— orm or e p ro p erl y, wh etherther e i s a r ea so na bl e pr o babi l i tytha t, i fc o uns elha d pur su ed th e m oti on, the re sul t o fthe c rim i nal cas e would have bee n d iffer en t. A rea so n ab le p ro b ab ility is a p ro b ab ility su ffic ien t t o u n d er m in e c on f i d e n c e in th e o u tc om e. St r i ck l and, 46 6 U .S. at 6 94 . Th e g ov er n m en t m a in ta in s t h at ev en if J o hns o n h a d a p r o t e c t ab l e i n t e r e s ti n th e v e h i c l e , t he m o ti o n c o ul d no t ha ve b ee n s ucces sfulb ec au se he c o nsen ted to the searc h. A t t his stage of th e proc ess, how ever, w e ca nnot a ssum e that J ohnson gave such co ns e nt. J ohnson ass er ts that he di d not co nsent to the s ear ch, a nd anN o. 08

- 1777 11 evi denti ar y hear i ng i s necess ar y to re sol ve that i ssue . I f the di str i ct c ourtdeter m i nes that he did notgi ve such conse nt, and that he e stabl i shed a r eas onabl e e xpectati on ofpri vacyi n the vehi cl e, then the f ai l ure to file a m oti on to supp ress w as prej ud i ci alunl ess the gov er nm ent c an es tabl i sha n inde pen den t co ns ti tu tiona l b as i s f o r the se ar ch

. Even i fthe dist ri ct c ourtdeter m i nes o n r em an d that J ohnson gave co nsent, J ohnson ass er ts that the ini ti al sei zure was i nval i d and there f or e that a ny co nsen t obta i ne d a s a r es ul t o ftha t se i zu r e i s i nv al i d a s wel l

. Aga i n, th e t es tim on y re lev an t t o th is i s s u e is sp ar se be c au se it w as not pu rs ued at t ri aland the d i str i ct c ourtdi d not conduct an e vi denti ar y hearin g on the i neffecti ve ass i stance cl ai m . The o ffi cer s s tat ed that they saw J ohnson c a r r y i n gwh a ta p p e a r e d t o b e o p en al co h o li n a b r o wn bag. There i s no in d icati on a s t o w hat ca used them to b elie v e t h at th e b ag co n ta in ed alc oh ol, n or is th er e e vidence as to wh y they b el i eve d that i t was o pen. I t i s no t ha r d t o i m ag i ne f ac ts tha t coul d l ea d a n o ffi ce r t o r ea so nabl y s uspect that a br own bagi n f act conta i ned open alco ho l, b uta ny e ff o r ts t o de te r m i ne whethe r the offi cer s pos ses sed a re aso nabl e s uspici on that he w as c ar ry in g op en alc oh ol w ou ld be ran k s p ec u lat ion atth is poi nt.

III
. Theref or e, an e vi denti ar y hea ring i s nec ess ar y t o re so lve th e fac tu al i ss u es th at ar e crit ica l to th e a n a l y sis of th e i ne ffec ti ve a ss i st an ce c l ai m . The de ci si o n o fthe12 N o. 08

- 1777 dist ri ct c ourti s V ACATED a n d the case R EMAND ED f or fu r t h er p ro c ee d in gs co n sis te n t w ith th is op in ion . C irc u it Ru l e 3 6 s ha l l a pp l y o n r e man d.

5- 14- 10