United States v. John Michael McCambridge

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the defendant had no standing to challenge the search of the stolen suitcase because he did not have an ownership interest or other right to it
• stopping defendant for “following too closely” was not pretextual where sheriff had just stopped another driver for same offense
• stopping defendant for \following too closely\ was not pretextual where sheriff had just stopped another driver for same offense
• stopping defendant for “following too closely” was not pretextual where sheriff had just stopped another driver for same offense
• stopping defendant for \following too closely\ was not pretextual where sheriff had just stopped another driver for same offense
• leaving open the possible use of Rule 33 for ineffective assistance claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).