United States v. Tarbox

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-