Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Steven H. Elliott, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 904 F.2d 25
June 1, 1990
Before WRIGHT, WALLACE and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
The opinion filed in the above case on January 3, 1990, reported at 893 F.2d 220, is amended as follows:
On pages 224-25, righthand column, first and second full paragraphs are deleted and the following is inserted:
Finally, Elliott argues at length that Wilson fabricated the evidence against him. This contention is insufficient. The magistrate refused to find that Wilson had in fact fabricated any testimony. Although there was some evidence that Wilson once considered such a plan, the magistrate concluded that "[t]here was no evidence presented at the hearing to show that informant Wilson ever carried out any proposed scheme to plant cocaine." Elliott is unable to point to any finding in the record showing that Wilson made misstatements. Moreover, Elliott's allegations of wrongdoing go only to the presence of cocaine. Wilson also testified as to the presence of a marijuana-growing operation, and to the fact that sometime previously Elliott had a garbage bag full of marijuana at his residence. These statements alone are sufficient to establish probable cause.
The panel as constituted above has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).
The petition for rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.