From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Popham

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Nov 9, 2005
Case Number 05-20008-BC (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2005)

Opinion

Case Number 05-20008-BC.

November 9, 2005


ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR FRANKS HEARING


On August 8, 2005, a hearing was held in open court on the defendants' motion to suppress evidence. Testimony was taken from witnesses, including the search warrant affiant, William Veltman. On August 15, 2005, the Court entered an opinion and order, granting in part and denying in part the motion. This matter is now before the Court on a motion filed by the defendant Popham seeking reconsideration of this Court's opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to suppress evidence. The defendant Popham has submitted a transcript of a preliminary examination conducted before the Honorable Allen C. Yenior, which will be made part of the record. The defendant Popham asserts that this transcript reveals inconsistencies in the statements of William Veltman, whose affidavit was the basis for the search warrant that was challenged in the motion to suppress.

After the August 8, 2005 hearing was held, the defendant Crane filed a motion for a Franks hearing. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The hearing held on August 8, 2005 is the functional equivalent of a Franks hearing. The motion will therefore be deemed a motion for reconsideration.

The Local Rules of this Court permit a party to file a motion for reconsideration of a ruling within ten days after its entry by the Court. Such a motion will be granted only if the movant identifies a "palpable defect" in this court's disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). A "palpable defect" is a one that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 605, 624 (E.D. Mich. 2001). After reviewing the matters submitted, the Court's conclusion is unchanged. The defendants have not shown a palpable defect in the Court's order. Their motions will be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant Popham's motion for reconsideration [dkt # 44] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant Crane's motion for a Franks hearing [dkt # 31] is DENIED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Popham

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Nov 9, 2005
Case Number 05-20008-BC (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2005)
Case details for

U.S. v. Popham

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM EDWIN POPHAM and MICHAEL…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Date published: Nov 9, 2005

Citations

Case Number 05-20008-BC (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2005)