Search for: "Pbs v. Prosecuting Attorneys Office"
Results 1 - 20
of 37
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Mar 2007, 5:13 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 5:03 am
For example, in In re Grand Jury (Impounded) the defendant's office was searched and a file containing attorney work-product was seized. [read post]
13 Jun 2007, 6:01 am
June 11, 2007).* Prosecuting Attorney who advised an officer that the officer should arrest plaintiff for an allegation of sexual abuse had qualified immunity based on the facts known at the time. [read post]
3 Aug 2007, 7:53 am
United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2010, 6:42 am
Ingram, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th 1280 held that where the District Attorney conducted an investigation in response to a complaint filed with the District Attorney's Office by interested citizens alleging Brown Act violations, the District Attorney was protected by the prosecutorial immunity of section 821.6 for the statements made after close of the investigation because those statements were part of the prosecution process and hence were an exercise of… [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 8:44 am
The officers were not, in the words of Malley v. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 3:05 pm
SCOTUS cert grant in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 10-98 (Kagan, J., recused). [read post]
20 May 2012, 5:17 am
People v. [read post]
30 Oct 2010, 8:41 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Sep 2007, 9:03 am
As the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals stated when it rejected a claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to notice the expiration of the wiretapping statute, "the Wyoming Attorney General's Office, several state district court judges, the Wyoming Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, dozens of defense attorneys, the Wyoming Legislature, the United States Attorney's Office, and the… [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 6:39 am
Attorney Gen., 434 Mass. 418, 442, 750 N.E.2d 897 (2001), without additional facts specifically concerning an intent to distribute, Officer Finnerty's knowledge of the defendant's prior criminal record by itself could not justify police intrusion, see Commonwealth v. [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 8:52 am
The Burnsville police officers may have had to contact a prosecuting attorney at home to prepare a warrant request. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 3:04 am
United States v. [read post]
5 May 2007, 8:31 am
The State also agrees that eliciting such testimony was improper and that the prosecuting attorney could not reasonably have believed that such evidence was admissible in this case. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 5:17 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 9:51 pm
Chism v. [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 5:39 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2007, 9:00 am
He adds that, although no money had been offered or explicit promises made, the CI obviously expected a good reference from the officers to the local district attorney as a quid pro quo for the tip. [read post]
27 Jul 2007, 1:47 pm
Taylor v. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 10:20 am
But in this case, the prosecution failed to show that the objective facts known to the police officers at the time of the download constituted probable cause to search the SDM for evidence of crime. [read post]
