From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Stallings

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 23, 2010
CRIMINAL NO. 09-368 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2010)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding that officers properly seized a handgun in an investigatory stop because the officers "did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the [gun] could be plainly viewed"

Summary of this case from United States v. Blackshear
See 1 Summary

Opinion

CRIMINAL NO. 09-368.

February 23, 2010

ORDER

PAUL DIAMOND, District Judge

AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2010, it is ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence (Doc. #19) is DENIED, as set forth at a hearing held in open court on January 22, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Summaries of

U.S. v. Stallings

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 23, 2010
CRIMINAL NO. 09-368 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2010)

finding that officers properly seized a handgun in an investigatory stop because the officers "did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the [gun] could be plainly viewed"

Summary of this case from United States v. Blackshear
Case details for

U.S. v. Stallings

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SAM STALLINGS

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 23, 2010

Citations

CRIMINAL NO. 09-368 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2010)

Citing Cases

United States v. Blackshear

Officer Witherspoon's concern for safety was reasonable in light of the factual circumstances here and his…

1 Citing Cases