United States v. Tarbox
United States v. Tarbox
Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 97-1913
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
PETER E. TARBOX,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Wayne S. Moss on brief for appellant.
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, Timothy Wing and F.
Mark Terison, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
appellee.
November 19, 1997
Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant Peter Tarbox
appeals from the district court's denial of his suppression
motion. The sole issue on appeal is whether the searching
officers violated the Fourth Amendment because they entered
appellant's home and began the search after receiving notice
that a search warrant had been issued but before the warrant
was in their physical possession. The district court
properly concluded that our holding in United States v.
Bonner,
808 F.2d 864, 869(1st Cir. 1986) dictates the
outcome in this case. Bonner has not been overruled by
Wilson v. Arkansas,
514 U.S. 927(1995), as appellant argues.
Therefore, the order denying appellant's motion to suppress
and the judgment of conviction are affirmed. See Loc. R.
27.1.
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished