D.Kan.: Pro se motion to suppress of represented def doesn’t attach affidavits, say why 4A or statute violated, or cite any law; denied for having counsel

Defendant is represented by counsel, then files a motion to suppress. “Defendant’s pro se motion reflects a misunderstanding of court proceedings. The Defendant fails to specify which search warrant he objects to, fails to provide a copy, or copies, of the offending affidavit(s) he quotes throughout his motion, and fails to provide valid cites to relevant case law required to establish the burden of proof or legal standards. See generally (Doc. 32.) The filing of such motions only serves to waste court resources and make manifest the wisdom of not permitting hybrid representation.” United States v. Moss, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25042 (D. Kan. Feb. 10, 2021).

The district court resolved the factual question of whether the passenger’s seat belt was fastened while the car was moving and then was fastened before the officer got to the window. That was a factual basis for the stop, and it was not unreasonable because it was allegedly pretextual (but not shown to be racially motivated) and the fact a large number of officers were involved. United States v. Brooks, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3546 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Motion to suppress, Pretext, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.