CA11: Half-hearted standing argument was an abandonment of it

Defendant’s less than half-hearted argument that he had standing in a borrowed van was tantamount to an abandonment of the argument on appeal. United States v. Crisp, 355 Fed. Appx. 378 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

In his brief, Crisp refers only three times, in passing, to the reasonableness of his privacy expectation. He alludes in one sentence to his pretrial suppression argument; he devotes two sentences to the proposition that his “custody and control over the van” gave him “a reasonable expectation of privacy”; and he asserts in his conclusion, without support, that he “had an expectation of privacy in the borrowed vehicle.” Such cursory treatment of the issue that was dispositive in the district court–and thoroughly discussed in its order–works an abandonment of the issue on appeal. Without a legitimate expectation of privacy in the van, Crisp cannot challenge the validity of the search.

Defendant’s consent to a general search of his house was sufficient to open a false bottomed can. He also did not object to the use of a dog in the search [like anybody can know they can?]. United States v. Duncan, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26711 (11th Cir. December 8, 2009) (unpublished).*

Habeas petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to and did litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in Kansas state court, so his COA is denied. Scott v. Werholtz, 355 Fed. Appx. 203 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*