Legal Opinion
United States v. Neering
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided March 28, 2002No. 1:01-cr-20043PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
LAWSON, District Judge.
The defendants, husband and wife, are charged in a three-count indictment with manufacturing and possession with intent to distribute various quantities of marijuana. They have filed an amended motion to suppress certain evidence seized from their residence on September 22, 2001 pursuant to a search warrant signed by a state court deputy magistrate. The defendants contend that the deputy magistrate, a non-lawyer, did not have training sufficient to permit her competently to make probable cause…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Shadwick v. City of TampaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- MacOmb County Prosecutor v. MurphyMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- United States v. MasterCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2010
- Bosteder v. City of RentonWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. HessWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
- United States v. LevinDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2016
- Bosteder v. City of RentonWashington Supreme Court · 2005
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.