This is one of those cases where the def dumps his drugs in the back of the patrol car and the officer finds the drugs. The defense attorney has filed his motion to suppress arguing the usual points and one that hasn't really ever come up (I'm guessing). He's arguing "the officer's search of HIS patrol unit is in violation of the law, as the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to searh HIS vehicle for contraband."

You just never know what is going to be argued next.

Of course the officer did not need reasonable suspicion to search - he asked for consent and gave it to himself. Problem solved. (Ignoring the obvious standing for the defendant to complain of the search of the officer's vehicle).

...or the lack of any expectation of privacy in the patrol car.

...or that the officer can testify that it is standard procedure to search the patrol unit before going on duty and after each transport,

Considering the amount of dope found after transporting people in patrol cars, it would seem to me the officer likely had reasonable suspicion. Maybe you should remind the movant's attorney that he is not supposed to assert an issue without reasonably believing that there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous (even though that rule seems to get violated frequently and with impunity).

No reasonable expectation of privacy, no need for reasonable suspicion, and of course defendant abandoned the property

There ought to be sanctions available to a trial judge in a criminal case similar to the sanctions available to a civil trial judge when a litigant files a frivilous pleading or motion.

Perhaps a legislative solution is in order with this case cited as the reason.

That could provide fodder for appellants claiming ineffective assistance.

That standard and sanction already exists. See article 1.052, CCP.

In that provision, "groundless" means without basis in law or fact and not warranted by good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law.