In Re Search Warrants Issued August 29, 1994

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a compelling interest was not shown when investigation was three years long and was not part of some broader investigation involving other participants in other districts
• stating that a compelling interest was not shown when investigation was three years long, not part of some broader investigation involving other participants in other districts, did not contain wiretaps, and no informant’s lives were endangered
• “Although Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does require notice of the execution of a search warrant, no such requirement is found in the Fourth Amendment.”
• “Review under Rule 72(a) provides ‘considerable deference to the determination of the magistrates.’ A finding is clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (citations omitted)
• setting precedent upon which Up North Plastics court relied

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).