United States v. Tarbox
Case Date: 11/21/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1913
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1913 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. PETER E. TARBOX, Defendant,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- |