Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard. Read the opinion of the Court — 637 F.3d 380
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided March 29, 2011·No. 09-5330·Published

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 09-5330 September Term, 2010 FILED ON : MARCH 29, 2011

PAUL BAME , ET AL., APPELLEES

v.

TODD W. DILLARD , IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPICITY (FORMER UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ), APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:05-cv-01833)

Before: GINSBURG and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge

ORDER

It is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the dissenting opinion issued on March 25, 2011, be amended as follows:

On page 4, first full paragraph, delete lines 9-14 beginning with the citation “Pearson v.

Callahan and ending at 823.”, and insert in lieu thereof:

“Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808 (2009). There the Supreme Court concluded that the narcotics task force officers were entitled to rely on the consensus among the courts to the consent-once-removed doctrine at the time of their warrantless entry into a home, despite the lack of a ruling from the officers’ own federal circuit, id. at 823.”

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Jennifer M. Clark Deputy Clerk

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

Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard, (D.C. Cir. 2011).

Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard (Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pearson v. Callahan
555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court, 2009)