Pro se defendant can\u2019t raise a post-trial Fourth Amendment claim because he didn\u2019t fully understand the FBI 302 discussing the search. \u201cWhat Defendant is experiencing are the real-world consequences that he was warned of when he elected to proceed pro se. The ability to read and understand discovery materials, and to make timely objections based on those materials, are the hallmarks of criminal defense advocacy. Defendant, understandably, lacked those skills. But that’s not a basis for relief. Defendant cannot raise his Fourth Amendment claim now, and his request for relief based on that claim is denied.\u201d United States v. Cox, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110706 (N.D. Ind. June 11, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pro se motion to dismiss for a Franks violation is denied as untimely and not making the required \u201csubstantial preliminary showing.\u201d United States v. Mayfield, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110451 (N.D. Iowa June 11, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMs. Gray’s arguments to suppress evidence lack the required specificity to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge.\u201d United States v. Gray, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110928 (E.D. Mo. May 1, 2025).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Pro se defendant can\u2019t raise a post-trial Fourth Amendment claim because he didn\u2019t fully understand the FBI 302 discussing the search. \u201cWhat Defendant is experiencing are the real-world consequences that he was warned of when he elected to proceed pro … Continue reading