Mosby v. Senkowski
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
470 F.3d 515 (2006)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Witnesses saw a man known as “Florida” shoot and kill two men. Days later, police arrested Marcus Mosby (defendant) for selling drugs. Officers arrived at a house without a warrant. After attempting to coax Mosby out, the officers entered and arrested Mosby. While Mosby was in a police car, a neighbor asked what the officers wanted with “Florida,” referring to Mosby. Officers presented a photo array to the murder witnesses, who identified Mosby as the killer. After being read his rights and declining an attorney, Mosby confessed. Mosby was indicted for homicide. Before trial, Mosby moved to suppress the confession and photo identification on the ground that his warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court held that Mosby lacked standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim since he had no “expectation of privacy,” because he did not live in the home. The motion was denied, and Mosby was convicted. On appeal, Mosby’s attorney did not challenge the suppression ruling. Mosby applied for a writ of coram nobis to vacate the conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate division denied the application, and Mosby petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The district court denied the writ, and Mosby appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, Jr., J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
