United States v. Michael Lawrence Pollock

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a defendant had standing to challenge the search of a residence that he used, with the per- mission of the owner, to manufacture methamphetamine
• standing found on the basis that defendant and others, engaged in the joint venture of producing methamphetamine, had moved their laboratory around from place to place to avoid detection, and that they manufactured the contraband at night to conceal their activities
• rejecting open-ended continuances and holding that “an ‘ends of justice’ extension . . . is proper only if ordered for a specific period of time and justified on the record with reference to the factors enumerated in section 3161(h)([7])(B)” (emphasis omitted)
• “our usual practice is to remand to allow the district court to decide in the first instance the type of dismissal that is appropriate”
• defendant was co-operator of a drug laboratory in his friend’s house; he was exercising “joint control” over the property, and thus had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house
• defendant was co-operator of a drug laboratory in his friend's house; he was exercising \joint control\ over the property, and thus had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).