Criminal Law

Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law) In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:00:02 GMT

US v. Cha

(U.S. 9th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) In a prosecution for conspiracy, sex trafficking and coercion, and enticement to travel for the purpose of prostitution, a grant of defendants' motion to suppress evidence is affirmed where the warrantless seizure of defendants' residence, which lasted a minimum of 26.5 hours, was constitutionally unreasonable.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:00:02 GMT

US v. Miller

(U.S. 5th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Dismissal of defendant's petition for a writ of audita querela challenging a restitution order, arising from his conviction for conducting a monetary transaction with criminally-derived funds and evading income tax, is affirmed where: 1) if it still exists, the writ of audita querela can only be applied to rectify a judgment which, though correct when rendered, has since become infirm; and 2) since all parties to this case agree that the district court's restitution order was initially correct, and because the statute does not require the order to be modified every time a subsequent payment is made on a restitution obligation, there is no infirmity in defendant's judgment for a writ of audita querela to rectify.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:00:02 GMT

US v. Salem

(U.S. 7th Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Sentencing) In a prosecution of defendants for wire fraud and receiving stolen funds, district court's sentences based on relevant conduct findings are remanded as the district court made findings as to the reasonableness of the co-schemers' acts only, but it made no finding as to the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity under U.S.S.G. section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:00:02 GMT

US v. Stearn

(U.S. 3d Cir., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence) Following a grand jury indictment of defendants for federal narcotics and weapons offenses, district court's order granting in part motions to suppress evidence in favor of defendants is, with one irrelevant exception, reversed in its entirety where: 1) the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed to search the apparent residence of a confirmed drug dealer; 2) although closer probable cause questions are presented by the searches of other residences, each search is upheld under the Leon good faith exception as each warrant was sufficiently colored in probable cause to justify the executing officers' good faith reliance; and 3) the suppression of a defendant's saliva sample as "fruit of poisonous tree" is reversed as the defendant failed to prove a primary invasion of his own Fourth Amendment rights.
Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:00:02 GMT

Subscribe Now!

Free Legal Knowledge

Listen Radio Talk Show

Contact Us



Andrew D. Stine, P.A.

120 S. Olive Ave.
Suite 402
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Office: (561) 832-1170
Fax: (561) 832-1544

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.