United States v. Hai Ming Mu
104 F. App'x 674
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 16, 2004·No. Nos. 03-10375, 03-10396; D.C. No. CR-02-00977-1-PAC, CR-02-00977-JAT·Published
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The district court erred in denying defendants’ motion to suppress the evidence seized as the product of their unlawful continued detention. See United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 268 F.3d 719, 724r-25 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 279 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.2002). Additionally, both defendants had standing to challenge the admission of the evidence as incident to the continued detention. See United States v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000).
REVERSED.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Hai Ming Mu, 104 F. App'x 674 (9th Cir. 2004).
104 F. App'x 674 (United States v. Hai Ming Mu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Joe Davis Twilley
222 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Jose Trinidad Chavez-Valenzuela
279 F.3d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela
268 F.3d 719 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)