John E. Coyne v. Donald Watson

Sixth Circuit

John E. Coyne v. Donald Watson

392 F.2d 585, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7800

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 1968

Docket17777

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 392 F.2d 585 (John E. Coyne v. Donald Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John E. Coyne v. Donald Watson, 392 F.2d 585, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7800 (6th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Appellant, John E. Coyne, was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Clermont County, Ohio, of possession of a machine gun without a permit, contrary to § 2923.04 of the Ohio Revised Code. The machine gun which was illegally possessed by the appellant was seized from premises occupied by him by Ohio officers armed with a warrant to search the involved premises. Appellant moved to suppress the seized evidence and objected to its introduction in evidence on the ground that the affidavit for the issuance of the search warrant did not contain sufficiently reliable information to justify a finding of probable cause by the County Court Judge who issued the warrant. The Ohio courts denied his motion and objection, and he has exhausted all Ohio remedies available.

He moved for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, charging deprivation of rights granted to him under the Fourth arid Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Relief was denied him by the District Court in an opinion by District Judge Timothy S. Hogan. The District Court opinion, reported as Coyne v. Watson, Sheriff, 282 F.Supp. 235 (S.D.Ohio, 1967) sets out the facts and the reasons for the District Judge’s holding. We agree with his conclusions.

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be, and it is, hereby affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Appellant, John E. Coyne, was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Clermont County, Ohio, of possession of a machine gun without a permit, contrary to § 2923.04 of the Ohio Revised Code. The machine gun which was illegally possessed by the appellant was seized from premises occupied by him by Ohio officers armed with a warrant to search the involved premises. Appellant moved to suppress the seized evidence and objected to its introduction in evidence on the ground that the affidavit for the issuance of the search warrant did not contain sufficiently reliable information to justify a finding of probable cause by the County Court Judge who issued the warrant. The Ohio courts denied his motion and objection, and he has exhausted all Ohio remedies available.

He moved for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, charging deprivation of rights granted to him under the Fourth arid Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Relief was denied him by the District Court in an opinion by District Judge Timothy S. Hogan. The District Court opinion, reported as Coyne v. Watson, Sheriff, 282 F.Supp. 235 (S.D.Ohio, 1967) sets out the facts and the reasons for the District Judge’s holding. We agree with his conclusions.

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be, and it is, hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 F.2d 585, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-e-coyne-v-donald-watson-ca6-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack