\u201cMr. Lee made a perfunctory, one-sentence argument that the evidence seized during the search of his residence should be suppressed because there was \u2018no probable cause to believe evidence related to [the charged] offenses would be found in Jonesboro Arkansas let alone within the private bedroom of Defendant’s son.\u2019\u201d \u201cSee, e.g., United States v. Collins, 796 F.3d 829, 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (\u2018The parties\u2014not the courts\u2014must research and construct available legal arguments. … Accordingly, this Court has long warned that ‘perfunctory and undeveloped arguments’ are deemed waived.\u2019).\u201d \u201cSimply put, Mr. Lee identified possible arguments, but did not affirmatively make them.\u201d United States v. Lee, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98663 (S.D.Ill. July 28, 2016).<\/p>\n
During a consent encounter, defendant first consented to a search of his person, but he withdrew his consent by putting his hand in his pocket. He pulled out drugs and threw them on the ground, and the motion to suppress was properly denied because of the plain view. State v. Milos<\/a>, 294 Neb. 375, 2016 Neb. LEXIS 113 (July 29, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cMr. Lee made a perfunctory, one-sentence argument that the evidence seized during the search of his residence should be suppressed because there was \u2018no probable cause to believe evidence related to [the charged] offenses would be found in Jonesboro Arkansas … Continue reading