Lifetime GPS monitoring of convicted sex offenders after parole or supervision and traveling out of state required by state law doesn\u2019t violate the Fourth Amendment, relying on Belleau v. Wall, 811 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2016), and Braam v. Carr, 37 F.4th 1269 (7th Cir. 2022). Vyskocil v. Knutson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259488 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 12, 2026).* And then, the next day: Antrim v. Hoy, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 34818 (7th Cir. Nov. 13, 2026)* (we’ve held this three times now).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This pro se plaintiff stated enough to survive a 12(b)(6) motion that there was no exigency for police entry into his home under a suspected child abuse investigation. McDaniel v. Ivener, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259735 (D. Kan. Nov. 10, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2255 petitioner claimed defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the cell phone search. But he did, and lost, and losing doesn\u2019t mean he was ineffective. Sinisterra v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 260194 (D. Conn. Nov. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Lifetime GPS monitoring of convicted sex offenders after parole or supervision and traveling out of state required by state law doesn\u2019t violate the Fourth Amendment, relying on Belleau v. Wall, 811 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2016), and Braam v. Carr, … Continue reading