Complaint against a judge founded on the Michigan Constitution could not be removed to federal court. Plaintiff’s motion to remand granted. The claims could have been brought under the federal constitution but were not. Howard v. Borman, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57239 (E.D. Mich. August 16, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Vague and conclusory allegations in support of a motion to suppress are not enough under Rule 41(e). The defendant, however, is given a chance to supplement the motion to cure the deficiencies. United States v. Parfait, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57168 (W.D. La. August 15, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Viewing the videotape of the stop, the court concludes that the continuation of the stop was with RS. United States v. Woods, 445 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Ala. August 14, 2006).*<\/p>\n
PC was based on corroborated information and long surveillance of the defendant’s activities which were obviously related to what would appear to be drug dealing. United States v. Morales, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57391 (S.D. N.Y. August 11, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading