Opinion ID: 375749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to File Suppression Motion

Text: 13 The first argument in support of the ineffective assistance claim is that his counsel was remiss in failing to move to suppress the materials taken from Swinehart at the time of his arrest. 14 In United States v. Hines 16 we held that (e)ffective assistance does not demand that every possible motion be filed, but only those having a solid foundation. A motion to suppress the goods seized at the time of Swinehart's arrest would have lacked foundation. Warrantless searches of a suspect's person conducted during the course of a lawful arrest, are constitutional. 17 The only possible ground for a suppression motion then would be that the arrest was made without probable cause. At trial, the arresting agent testified that an investigation had determined that the bonds which comprised the Shirley Johnston account had been stolen, and that he was told by the bank that Swinehart had attempted on April 19 to cash a check drawn on the account and knew of a deposit, also comprised of stolen bonds, that was made on April 18. This information was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Swinehart. Thus, under existing Fourth Amendment case law, there was no foundation to support a motion to suppress the items taken from Swinehart. His trial counsel's failure to move to suppress the evidence therefore is not, as a matter of law, a sufficient predicate for the ineffective assistance claim, and accordingly there was no need for an evidentiary hearing on this question. 15