\u201cBrown first argues that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise three specific arguments in his defense: that the arresting officer violated Brown’s Fourth Amendment rights by (1) arresting Brown outside of the officer’s Birmingham jurisdiction, (2) entering a public restroom without a warrant to apprehend Brown, and (3) searching Brown’s clothing after arresting him. \u2026 Had counsel informed him of these Fourth Amendment violations, Brown contends, he would not have accepted the blind plea or would have pursued a motion to suppress.\u201d Officers were tailing a GPS transponder from a bank robbery, and the officer had exigency to follow and enter the bathroom [And none of these suggest a constitutional violation anyway.] Brown v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28816 (N.D.Ala. Feb. 17, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An adult riding a bicycle near a school on a Sunday was not reasonable suspicion. \u201cConsidering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the State failed to clear the \u2018low bar\u2019 of reasonable suspicion and instead relied on what could be described, at most, as \u2018a mere hunch\u2019 of the deputy.\u201d State v. Meddaugh<\/a>, 2022 Wisc. App. LEXIS 142 (Feb. 17, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cBrown first argues that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise three specific arguments in his defense: that the arresting officer violated Brown’s Fourth Amendment rights by (1) arresting Brown outside of the officer’s Birmingham jurisdiction, (2) entering a … Continue reading