From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Tinnin

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Apr 17, 2008
Criminal No. 07-439 (JNE/SRN) (D. Minn. Apr. 17, 2008)

Opinion

Criminal No. 07-439 (JNE/SRN).

April 17, 2008


ORDER


This case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 14, 2008. Defendants Marco Orlando Tinnin and Darrel Robinson filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Government filed a response to the objections. Based on a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 506]. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant Marco Orlando Tinnin's Motion to Suppress Statements [Docket No. 183] is DENIED.
2. Defendant Marco Orlando Tinnin's Motion to Suppress Electronic Surveillance and Wiretapping [Docket No. 262] is DENIED.
3. Defendant Danta Franks' Motion to Suppress Admissions or Confessions [Docket No. 313] is deemed WITHDRAWN.
4. Defendant Danta Franks' Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [Docket No. 314] is deemed WITHDRAWN.
5. Defendant Danta Franks' Motion to Dismiss Indictment as Insufficient [Docket No. 356] is DENIED.
6. Defendant Darrel Robinson's Motion to Suppress Evidence from Search and Seizure [Docket No. 215] is DENIED.
7. Defendant Darrel Robinson's Motion to Suppress Statements [Docket No. 216] is DENIED.
8. Defendant Darrel Robinson's Motion to Suppress Electronic Surveillance Evidence [Docket No. 217] is DENIED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Tinnin

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Apr 17, 2008
Criminal No. 07-439 (JNE/SRN) (D. Minn. Apr. 17, 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Tinnin

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Marco Orlando Tinnin (06), Danta…

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Apr 17, 2008

Citations

Criminal No. 07-439 (JNE/SRN) (D. Minn. Apr. 17, 2008)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Wesley

Other district courts have considered this very issue and have found that this type of error did not merit…

U.S. v. Grigsby

An erroneous reference in a wiretap application to an expired designation order does not require suppression…