Luna-Morales v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement is established “by an oath or affirmation and a neutral or detached magistrate mak[ing] a probable cause determination”
• holding that an officer’s training-and-experience statement, coupled with other observations, sufficiently established a nexus between money and illegal betting records and the defendant’s residence
• noting that “[n]othing in [the federal statute] requires that a wiretap application itself contain proof that it has been reviewed by the principal prosecuting attorney”
• noting that Massachusetts law requires principal prosecuting attorney to “personally review” the wiretap application
• finding no Fifth Amendment violation where prosecutor noted there was “no evidence at all” to support defense theory
• stating that Neder applies to a Yates claim on direct review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).