Legal Opinion
United States v. Stephens
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided February 17, 2010No. 09-3706PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RILEY, Circuit Judge.
After a grand jury returned an indictment alleging David Stephens received and transported child pornography, the government asked the district court to impose a curfew and electronic monitoring as conditions of Stephens’ pretrial release. A curfew and electronic monitoring are required under § 216 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub.L. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (2006) (Adam Walsh Act) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)). The district court declined to impose a curfew and electronic monitoring because, in its view, such mandatory release…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Eisenstadt v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Murphy v. HuntSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican PartySupreme Court of the United States · 2008
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property ImprovementCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2010
- United States v. Devonte VeasleyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2024
- United States v. Todd BramerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
- United States v. James Robert CarlsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
- United States v. PolouizziDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.