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).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appellant\u2019s generalized claim defense counsel was ineffective for not doing things as a part of a motion to suppress doesn\u2019t 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).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … Continue reading