United States v. Michael A. Wolffs

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that application of an exclusionary rule in regards to a violation of the Act was not an appropriate remedy, but that future widespread and repeated violations could require creating an exclusionary rule
• declining to address the “complex and difficult issue” of whether, under the facts presented, the PCA was violated and, assuming without deciding that there was a violation, concluding that the exclusionary rule was inapplicable
• declining to address the \complex and difficult issue\ of whether, under the facts presented, the PCA was violated and, assuming without deciding that there was a violation, concluding that the exclusionary rule was inapplicable
• “[A]ssuming without deciding that there was a violation [of the Posse Comitatus Act], application of an exclusionary rule is not warranted.” In the event of “widespread and repeated violations” of the Act an exclusionary rule can later be fashioned.
• “defendant must adduce some evidence, more than a scintilla, which tends to show government inducement and lack of predisposition”
• “defendant must adduce some evidence, more than a scintilla, which tends to show government inducement and lack of predisposition”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).