Just because the client insists on defense counsel making a frivolous Fourth Amendment argument doesn\u2019t mean counsel should raise it. \u201cCounsel for Temple suggested during the suppression hearing that the first four arguments are \u2018north of frivolous\u2019 but acknowledged the arguments lack real merit. He indicated Temple had insisted he make the arguments. The undersigned agrees the first four arguments lack merit. More aptly, they wholly and unequivocally lack merit. Given as much, the undersigned addresses them below only briefly. Temple’s last two arguments present closer questions than the first four but nonetheless fail.\u201d United States v. Temple, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99112 (N.D. Ala. May 10, 2024),* adopted 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98042 (N.D. Ala. June 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Habeas petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim brought to preserve for further review was barred by Stone. Schiller v. Tegels, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98817 (E.D. Wis. June 4, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that automated license plate readers are unconstitutional searches is moot by probable cause for the stop. United States v. Gonzalez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98953 (D. Kan. June 4, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Just because the client insists on defense counsel making a frivolous Fourth Amendment argument doesn\u2019t mean counsel should raise it. \u201cCounsel for Temple suggested during the suppression hearing that the first four arguments are \u2018north of frivolous\u2019 but acknowledged the … Continue reading