United States v. Jones
District Court, S.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS, DOC. 33, AND AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS. DOC. 53. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE COURT SUPPRESS EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM A NETWORK INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE SEARCH WARRANT IS DENIED.
THOMAS M. ROSE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, doc. 33, and Amended Motion to Suppress. Doc. 53. Therein, Defendant requests that the Court suppress evidence in this case derived from a network investigative technique, or NIT, search warrant, a subsequent search warrant to' search Defendant’s…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. JanisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. WorkmanCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017
- United States v. CooksonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019
- United States v. Kyle BatemanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019
- United States v. TaylorDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2017