United States v. Rickus
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TROUTMAN, District Judge.
Urging reconsideration of a portion of our prior memorandum and order, 566 F.Supp. 96, the Government argues that we erred in applying Pennsylvania law which requires suppression of certain evidence seized by police from the defendants’ locked car trunk. The Government further contends that United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), controls the issue at bar. Assuming, arguendo, that the Government’s position is sound, we nonetheless reach the same conclusion which we reached in our prior memorandum.
In United States…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Brinegar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. RickusDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. Rickus, Robert F. United States of America v. Nazarok, Dennis M. Appeal of United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984