United States v. Elie F. Abboud (04-3942) and Michel Abboud (04-3943)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a three-year gap was insufficient to demonstrate staleness where the criminal activity was ongoing
• holding that a warrant covering a six-year period was invalid because probable cause only supported the seizure of evidence pertaining to a three-month period
• holding that a warrant covering a six-year period was invalid because probable cause only supported the seizure of evidence pertaining to a three-month period
• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing because his claim was “entirely legal in nature”
• holding that a finding of overbreadth does not require suppression of all items seized pursuant to a warrant, but only those items obtained that exceeded the proper scope of the search
• holding that waiver applied to argument first presented in a reply brief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).