N.D.Ind.: Def put drugs in a confederate’s car, and he had no standing despite being the target of the search

Defendant put drugs in bags in the car of a confederate in the crime. When the car was searched, he didn’t have standing, even though he was admittedly the target of the search and not in possession. United States v. Randle, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190591 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 24, 2023).

The plaintiff was charged with dog fighting. After the state court dismissed the criminal case, he sued the city. “We need not unravel the interplay of issue preclusion, the exclusionary rule, the landlord’s consent, probable cause, and the reasonableness of the searches, because the Monell defense blocks this suit.” Brodanex v. Town of St. John, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28233 (7th Cir. Oct. 24, 2023).*

Defense counsel foregoing moving to suppress a cell phone that defendant apparently consented to be searched was reasonable. Harvey v. Artis, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190491 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2023).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Ineffective assistance, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.