\u201cAnd here, it strains credulity for Young to claim that he has any standing to challenge the lawfulness of the victim\u2019s sexual-assault examination.\u201d Young v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 401 (Aug. 5, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging this federal search on state law grounds. United States v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172582 (W.D. La. Aug. 3, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPlaintiff asserts that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by not immediately releasing him from custody on electronic monitoring. Yet, \u2018no court has held that the Fourth Amendment compels the release of sex offenders who lack lawful and approved living arrangements.\u2019 Smith v. Anderson, 874 F.3d 966, 968 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Brown v. Randle, 847 F.3d 861, 864 (7th Cir. 2017)). The Court cannot infer from the allegations contained in the complaint that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by verifying information with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections before releasing him on electronic monitoring.\u201d Rowell v. Mikula, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173009 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 4, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAnd here, it strains credulity for Young to claim that he has any standing to challenge the lawfulness of the victim\u2019s sexual-assault examination.\u201d Young v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 401 (Aug. 5, 2026).* Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not … Continue reading