Legal Opinion
United States v. John William Drosten
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided June 23, 1987No. 86-3612PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:
In this case, we review the district court’s application of the “inevitable discovery rule” to evidence law enforcement officers seized during the course of an unlawful entry of the appellant’s apartment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS
On March 13, 1986, an informant, Tea-phel McMahon, contacted the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO) offering information regarding narcotics activity in exchange for assistance in entering a drug rehabilitation program. The law enforcement officers arranged for McMahon to place…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. SatterfieldCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
- United States v. Wayne Garfield Brookins, IIICourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. GoldCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Garza v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1989
- United States v. George M. Khoury, Howard Kluver, David W. West, Louis H. ChippasCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
- State v. LeeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2008
- United States v. Scott Allen RhindCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ference LANG, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.