N.D.Ala.: Def insisted on counsel raising arguments that were “wholly and unequivocally lack[ing] merit”

Just because the client insists on defense counsel making a frivolous Fourth Amendment argument doesn’t mean counsel should raise it. “Counsel for Temple suggested during the suppression hearing that the first four arguments are ‘north of frivolous’ but acknowledged the arguments lack real merit. He indicated Temple had insisted he make the arguments. The undersigned agrees the first four arguments lack merit. More aptly, they wholly and unequivocally lack merit. Given as much, the undersigned addresses them below only briefly. Temple’s last two arguments present closer questions than the first four but nonetheless fail.” United States v. Temple, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99112 (N.D. Ala. May 10, 2024),* adopted 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98042 (N.D. Ala. June 3, 2024).*

Habeas petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim brought to preserve for further review was barred by Stone. Schiller v. Tegels, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98817 (E.D. Wis. June 4, 2024).*

Defendant’s claim that automated license plate readers are unconstitutional searches is moot by probable cause for the stop. United States v. Gonzalez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98953 (D. Kan. June 4, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.