From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Wright

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Winchester
Mar 3, 2010
No. 4:08-cr-18 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 3, 2010)

Summary

finding the necessary inferential link supported by the investigating officer's statements in his affidavit describing his 19 years' experience and responsibility for the investigation of computer crimes

Summary of this case from United States v. Hicks

Opinion

No. 4:08-cr-18.

March 3, 2010


ORDER


United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(a). [Court Doc. 91]. Neither party filed objections within the given 14 days.

After reviewing the record, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee's report and recommendation. The Court thus ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 59(a).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Motion to Suppress [Court Doc. 17] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Wright

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Winchester
Mar 3, 2010
No. 4:08-cr-18 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 3, 2010)

finding the necessary inferential link supported by the investigating officer's statements in his affidavit describing his 19 years' experience and responsibility for the investigation of computer crimes

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

U.S. v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRANDON WRIGHT

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Winchester

Date published: Mar 3, 2010

Citations

No. 4:08-cr-18 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 3, 2010)

Citing Cases

United States v. Hicks

In other recently decided cases in this Circuit, the court has found that an affidavit setting forth specific…

People v. Meakens

It is thus possible that the seizure of a smartphone is more disruptive to a pretrial detainee than to a…