Defendant does not offer further context or analysis. Based upon his failure to fully address this issue, the Defendant’s argument regarding an alleged illegal search and seizure is denied without prejudice. See United States v. Collins, 796 F.3d 829, 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that the parties, rather than the court, must research and construct available legal arguments). The Defendant may file a Motion to Suppress to fully address this issue.\u201d United States v. Williams, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59904 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 6, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claim of falsity under Franks was at worst negligence. \u201cHere, the district court did not err in finding that Thompson failed to meet this burden. To the extent that one statement in the affidavit misrepresented the source of the affiant’s information, as Thompson argues on appeal, there is no evidence that this was done intentionally or with a \u2018high degree of awareness of its probable falsity.\u2019\u201d United States v. Thompson<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10729 (4th Cir. Apr. 6, 2020).* Defendant does not offer further context or analysis. Based upon his failure to fully address this issue, the Defendant’s argument regarding an alleged illegal search and seizure is denied without prejudice. See United States v. Collins, 796 F.3d 829, 836 … Continue reading
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"