E.D.Wis.: No REP as to pole camera surveillance, one in an apt building hallway

Two surveillance cameras were installed; one on a pole, one in a hallway of an apartment building. Defendant, a visitor, had no reasonable expectation of privacy. A codefendant already litigated this motion and lost, and he should have acknowledged the prior order. United States v. Harris, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14787 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2021).*

Appellant’s generalized claim defense counsel was ineffective for not doing things as a part of a motion to suppress doesn’t state any grounds that reasonable jurists might disagree with. CoA denied. Terrell v. Lumpkin, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2135 (5th Cir. Jan. 26, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Pole cameras. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.