Legal Opinion

United States v. Cassity

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided August 28, 1981No. Crim. A. 77-80932PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FEIKENS, Chief Judge.

Defendants successfully challenged their 1978 convictions for conspiring to manufacture and manufacturing amphetamine, a controlled substance, on the grounds that the evidence by which they were convicted was the fruit of illegal electronic surveillance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the search warrants pursuant to which the beepers were installed in two cans of chemicals and a heating mantle did not meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment because they contained no expiration date or time limit, see United States v.…

2Cases cited61 opinions

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States v. HayesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
  2. United States v. Larry Wayne Cassity (81-1565), Billy Sword (81-1566), Stephen Gordon Lenk (81-1567)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
  3. United States v. CassityDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1985
  4. United States v. Alejandrina TorresCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  5. United States v. Alejandrina TorresCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API