Defendant\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was based on defense counsel\u2019s failure to file a motion to suppress of a marital vehicle. He never, however, showed that he did, in fact, have standing. Moreover, the trial court found that the search of the vehicle was with probable cause so he would lose on the merits anyway. Nelson v. State, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 877 (Dec. 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cStearns also appeals the dismissal of his excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to his Fourth Amendment claim, Stearns fails to \u2018provide a meaningful explanation of the argument\u2019 and neglects any \u2018citation to relevant authority.\u2019 \u2026 Therefore, his Fourth Amendment claim is waived.\u201d Stearns v. Wagner, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30513 (8th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No matter what date this Fourth Amendment claim arose, it was barred by limitations when it was filed. Willis v. Ruff, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218885 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was based on defense counsel\u2019s failure to file a motion to suppress of a marital vehicle. He never, however, showed that he did, in fact, have standing. Moreover, the trial court found that the … Continue reading