USA v. Battle, 5:17-CR-111-1H (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20171026e77
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 25, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2017
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on the government's Motion for Authorization to Take Saliva Samples and For Expedited Ruling, [DE #154]. Defendants did not respond, and the time for doing so has expired. While the government's motion addressed Fifth and Sixth Amendment implications, it failed to address the Fourth Amendment implications. See , e.g. , Maryland v. King , 569 U.S. 435 (2013). For lack of good cause shown, the government's m
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on the government's Motion for Authorization to Take Saliva Samples and For Expedited Ruling, [DE #154]. Defendants did not respond, and the time for doing so has expired. While the government's motion addressed Fifth and Sixth Amendment implications, it failed to address the Fourth Amendment implications. See , e.g. , Maryland v. King , 569 U.S. 435 (2013). For lack of good cause shown, the government's mo..
More
ORDER
MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on the government's Motion for Authorization to Take Saliva Samples and For Expedited Ruling, [DE #154]. Defendants did not respond, and the time for doing so has expired.
While the government's motion addressed Fifth and Sixth Amendment implications, it failed to address the Fourth Amendment implications. See, e.g., Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013). For lack of good cause shown, the government's motion, [DE #154], is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
