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 of America v. Mher Darbinyan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 6, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MHER DARBINYAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

ORDER CLARIFYING COURT'S RULING DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SUPPRESS WIRETAP EVIDENCE AND DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE [Docket Nos. 1535, 1542, 1547, 1553, 1557, 1562, 1569, 1575, 1580, 1581, 1589, 1652, 1669, 1771, 1773, 1774, 1780]

On June 1, 2012, this court held a hearing on Defendants' Motion to Suppress Wiretap Evidence and Derivative Evidence ("Motion"). The court ruled on Defendants' Motion from the bench, denying the Motion. Having reviewed the hearing transcript, the court hereby clarifies one of its findings.

As to necessity for the wiretap, the court finds that a reasonable issuing judge could not have denied the application for lack of necessity, even if the judge had been presented with Defendants' version of the relevant facts. See U.S. v. Blackmon, 273 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2001) ("If an application contains inaccuracies or significant omissions, the court must determine the facts relying on credible evidence produced at the suppression hearing to determine whether a 'reasonable [issuing] judge could have denied the application because necessity for the wiretap had not been shown.'" (quoting United States v. Ippolito, 774 F.2d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir. 1985))).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120606

© 1992-2012 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.