CA6: While federal law requires RS for a supervised release search, it wasn’t error for district court here to permit suspicionless searches

District court did not plainly err in imposing a suspicionless search condition separate from federal law that normally requires reasonable suspicion. United States v. Sulik, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10450 (6th Cir. Mar. 31, 2020).

“Nothing in the record suggests that Allen’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the seizure of evidence from Alvarez’s apartment, and therefore Allen cannot show deficient performance.” So no ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Allen, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58237 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 2020).*

Pro se plaintiff appealing the dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claim, “does not address the court’s reasons for dismissal; he has, therefore, abandoned his claims.” The suit involved a claim against his defense counsel in state court which was not specified. Thompson v. Roussell, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10458 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.