Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Majeed

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


August 4, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BURNIE MAJEED AND KELVIN GANDY

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Legrome D. Davis U.S. District Court Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of August 2009, upon consideration of Defendant Burnie Majeed's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained from Electronic Wiretaps (Doc. No. 90), Supplemental Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 98), and Second Supplemental Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 108), Defendant Kelvin Gandy's Motion to Suppress Intercepted Telephone Communications (Doc. No. 87 at 5-15), Motion to Suppress Electronic Interceptions from Concealed Microphones Installed in the Silver Kia Sportage (Doc. No. 87 at 16-19), and Supplemental Motion to Suppress Intercepted Telephone Communications (Doc. No. 106), the Government's Response to Defendants' Pretrial Motions, and Supplemental Response to Defendants' Pretrial Motions and Supplemental Brief, Defendant Gandy's Reply to the Government's Supplemental Response (Doc. No. 136), Defendant Majeed's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 135), the Government's Response thereto (Doc. No. 137), and Defendant Majeed Rebuttal to Government's Response (Doc. No. 138), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motions are DENIED. We find that there are no grounds to suppress the evidence obtained from any of the wiretap warrants on which the Government proposes to rely.

20090804

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.