{"id":3625,"date":"2010-05-18T22:40:09","date_gmt":"2009-12-13T09:06:06","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-12-13T09:06:06","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3625","title":{"rendered":"CA11: Half-hearted standing argument was an abandonment  of it"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s less than half-hearted argument that he had standing in a borrowed van was tantamount to an abandonment of the argument on appeal. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca11.uscourts.gov\/unpub\/ops\/200910004.pdf\">United States v. Crisp<\/a>, 355 Fed. Appx. 378 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>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 &#8220;custody and control over the van&#8221; gave him &#8220;a reasonable expectation of privacy&#8221;; and he asserts in his conclusion, without support, that he &#8220;had an expectation of privacy in the borrowed vehicle.&#8221; Such cursory treatment of the issue that was dispositive in the district court&#8211;and thoroughly discussed in its order&#8211;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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s 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?]. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca11.uscourts.gov\/unpub\/ops\/200816825.pdf\">United States v. Duncan<\/a>, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26711 (11th Cir. December 8, 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n<p>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. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca10.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/09\/09-3160.pdf\">Scott v. Werholtz<\/a>, 355 Fed. Appx. 203 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3625\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3625","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}