UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES MCGILL, JOHN HARTSEL, PATRICK MURPHY, A/K/A JAMES MURPHEY AND ARTHUR DESROCHES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
CHARLES MCGILL, JOHN HARTSEL, PATRICK MURPHY, A/K/A JAMES MURPHEY AND ARTHUR DESROCHES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
741 F.2d 699
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1984)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Other
PER CURIAM:
We find merit to McGill’s argument on application for rehearing that the following statement in our opinion at 736 F. 2d 223, 228 represents an erroneous conclusion of law: “Even if the arrest was illegal, McGill voluntarily signed a form consenting to the search. Evidence obtained from an informed and voluntary consent to search is admissible despite an illegal arrest.” (citing cases)
The above statement is not essential to the opinion and is deleted.
Except as noted above, the petitions for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause are denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1990)
-
United States v. Ladd, 877 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1989)
-
United States v. Weldon Parkhill and William E. Devine, 775 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Merritt, 736 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1984)