United States v. Bynum
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS OF DEFENDANTS ARTIS HOWELL, SHARY HOWELL, STAFFORD, TUBBS AND WILLIAMS
SKINNER, District Judge.
The above-named defendants have moved to suppress evidence of intercepted telephone conversations on four grounds:
1. The assistant attorney general who authorized the interception was not properly designated by the attorney general.
2. The assistant attorney general relied entirely on the recommendation of a subordinate and did not exercise independent judgment.
3. A second application necessitated by a change in the number assigned to the targeted telephone failed to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. DonovanSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. Michael PellicciCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1975
- United States v. Robert DiltzCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. LyonsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1981
- United States v. Reginald Lyons, A/K/A Reggie, A/K/A Casper, United States of America v. Willie Renaldo RoysterCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. BarkerDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1985
- United States v. Richard Edward Bynum, Jr.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
- Ghazaryan v. County of MaderaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024