Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Tarbox, 1st Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views6 pages
    The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Peter Tarbox's motion to suppress evidence. Tarbox argued that officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering his home and beginning a search after being notified a warrant had been issued but before receiving physical possession of it. However, the Court held that its prior ruling in United States v. Bonner, which this case did not overrule, dictated that the search was properly concluded.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-11-21 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 97-1913

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Peter Tarbox's motion to suppress evidence. Tarbox argued that officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering his home and beginning a search after being notified a warrant had been issued but before receiving physical possession of it. However, the Court held that its prior ruling in United States v. Bonner, which this case did not overrule, dictated that the search was properly concluded.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views6 pages

    United States v. Tarbox, 1st Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Peter Tarbox's motion to suppress evidence. Tarbox argued that officers violated the Fourth Amendment by entering his home and beginning a search after being notified a warrant had been issued but before receiving physical possession of it. However, the Court held that its prior ruling in United States v. Bonner, which this case did not overrule, dictated that the search was properly concluded.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6

    USCA1 Opinion

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________

    No. 97-1913

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Appellee,

    v.

    PETER E. TARBOX,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

    [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]


    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge,


    ___________
    Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Wayne S. Moss on brief for appellant.


    _____________
    Jay P. McCloskey,
    _________________
    Mark

    Terison,

    United States

    Assistant

    United

    Attorney, Timothy Wing and


    _____________

    States

    Attorneys,

    on

    brief

    ______________
    appellee.

    ____________________

    November 19, 1997


    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    ___________

    Defendant-appellant

    Peter

    Tarbox

    appeals from the

    motion.

    district court's denial of

    The sole issue

    officers violated

    appellant's

    in

    properly

    on appeal is whether

    the Fourth Amendment

    the searching

    because they entered

    home and began the search after receiving notice

    that a search warrant had

    was

    his suppression

    their

    physical

    concluded

    Bonner,
    ______

    808

    F.2d

    outcome

    in this

    that

    been issued but before the warrant

    possession.

    our holding

    864, 869

    case.

    (1st

    Bonner
    ______

    The

    in

    Cir.

    has not

    district

    court

    United States v.
    ______________

    1986) dictates

    been overruled

    the

    by

    Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), as appellant argues.


    ______
    ________

    Therefore, the order

    denying appellant's motion

    and the

    conviction are affirmed.


    ________

    judgment of

    to suppress

    See
    ___

    Loc. R.

    27.1.

    -2-

    You might also like