United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON DEFENDANT BENNETT'S MOTION OF
WALTON PRATT, United States District Court Judge
the Court is pro se Defendant Adrian Bennett's
(“Bennett”) Motion of Constitutional Challenges
to all Federal Statutes (Filing No. 765). The Third
Superseding Indictment in this case (Filing No. 595)
charges Bennett with Count One, Conspiracy to Possess with
Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Controlled Substances;
Count Eight: Possession with Intent to Distribute Controlled
Substances; and Count Nine: Felon in Possession of a Firearm.
In his Motion, Bennett alleges violations of Amendments II,
IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, and XIII to the United States
Constitution. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is
denied in all respects except for
Bennett's Fourth Amendment challenge, which is
taken under advisement.
Motion, Bennett lists verbatim language from Constitutional
Amendments II, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, and XIII and fails to
provide any analysis or bases for his challenges. The
Government asserts that because Bennett does not explain on
what bases any of his rights have been violated, or what
grounds his arguments rest on, his claims are entirely
undeveloped and should be deemed waived. And as the Seventh
Circuit has “said numerous times, undeveloped arguments
are deemed waived.” United States v. Foster,
652 F.3d 776, 793 (7th Cir. 2011); see United States v.
Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 916 (7th Cir. 2011).
Bennett did not elaborate on his arguments in the pleadings,
he did state on the record at the final pretrial conference
the basis for some of his challenges. Accordingly, the Court
will attempt to rule on the merits of Bennett's motion.
asserts the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed. Specifically, he argues that the Second
Amendment should allow one to have firearms at a residence
where they reside, especially when someone at the residence
has a firearm permit. Like most rights, Second Amendment
rights are not unlimited. District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The Second Amendment does
not prohibit the establishment of federal gun laws, including
18 U.S.C. 922(g) that is charged against Bennett this case.
Accordingly, Bennett's Second Amendment challenge, as the
Court understands it, is overruled.
challenges the right of the people to be secure in their
persons and houses against unreasonable searches and
seizures, and that no warrants shall issue except upon
The Fourth Amendment provides, The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
Const. Amend. IV. “If the search or seizure was
effected pursuant to a warrant, the defendant bears the
burden of proving its illegality.” United States v.
Longmire, 761 F.2d 411, 417 (7th Cir. 1985). At the
final pretrial conference, Bennett noted that he was moving
to suppress the search warrant and seizure of property, but
he has offered nothing else in support of his motion. The
Government responds to this challenge by reiterating that
Bennett's argument is underdeveloped and should be
considered waived. Because of the importance of this right
and based on Bennett's pro se representation,
the Court determines that Bennett should have an opportunity
to develop his Fourth Amendment argument and the Government
should have an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the Court
takes under advisement a ruling on
Bennett's Fourth Amendment challenge.
challenges that no person shall be held to answer for a crime
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. A
federal grand jury issued all indictments that have been
filed in this case, therefore Bennett's Fifth Amendment
challenge on this issue is overruled.
Bennett also appears to make a due process challenge. The
Court overrules this challenge because it
has afforded Bennett his due process rights and will continue
to do so.