Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Adams

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky

July 3, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ALIYA RAE ADAMS, Defendant

Page 756

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 757

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 758

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 759

For Eric Dawayne Jackson, also known as Fats, also known as E-Fats, Defendant: Stephen D. Milner, LEAD ATTORNEY, Hughes, Lowry, Milner & Hayworth, Lexington, KY.

For Aliya Rae Adams, Defendant: Russell James Baldani, LEAD ATTORNEY, Baldani, Rowland & Richardson, Lexington, KY.

For Robert Earl Jones, Defendant: Patrick F. Nash, LEAD ATTORNEY, Lexington, KY.

For USA, Plaintiff: Gary Todd Bradbury, AUSA, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office, EDKY, Lexington, KY.

OPINION

Page 760

Robert E. Wier, United States Magistrate Judge.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

Defendant Aliya Rae Adams, by counsel, moves to suppress evidence obtained from her residence pursuant to a state search warrant.[1] DE #49 (Motion). Specifically, Adams contends that the search warrant affidavit lacked sufficient information to support a probable cause finding. DE #49-1 at 3 (Memorandum in Support of Motion to Suppress). Adams further contends that incriminating statements she made to law enforcement following the search must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Id. at 6. Adams argues that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule articulated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), does not apply. DE #49-1 at 7.

The United States filed a response in opposition to the motion. DE #58 (Response). Defendant replied. DE #63 (Reply). Because the motion calls for " four corners" review of the warrant documents, the Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing.[2]

Page 761

Having reviewed the briefs submitted by counsel, as well as the subject warrant and affidavit, the Court recommends that the District Court DENY the motion to suppress. A substantial basis supported warrant issuance, and, in any event, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.