Legal Opinion

United States v. Bynum

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided September 13, 1984No. Crim. No. 84-206-SPublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. United States v. DonovanSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. United States v. Michael PellicciCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1975
  3. United States v. Robert DiltzCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
  4. United States v. LyonsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1981
  5. 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

  1. United States v. BarkerDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1985
  2. United States v. Richard Edward Bynum, Jr.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
  3. Ghazaryan v. County of MaderaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API