From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ponce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jan 4, 2013
Criminal No. 12-115(3) (JRT/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 4, 2013)

Opinion

Criminal No. 12-115(3) (JRT/LIB)

01-04-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CARLOTA PONCE, Defendant,

Jeffrey Allen and Julie Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for the plaintiff. Leon Trawick, TRAWICK & SMITH, PA, 331 Second Avenue South, Suite 515, Minneapolis, MN 55401, for the defendant.


ORDER ON REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION


Jeffrey Allen and Julie Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for the plaintiff.
Leon Trawick, TRAWICK & SMITH, PA, 331 Second Avenue South, Suite 515, Minneapolis, MN 55401, for the defendant.

The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated December 12, 2012. No objections have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period permitted. Based on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court now makes and enters the following Order.

IT IS HERERBY ORDERED that: The Defendant's motions to suppress [Docket Nos. 33 and 35] are DENIED. DATED: January 4, 2013
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

______________________

JOHN R. TUNHEIM

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Ponce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jan 4, 2013
Criminal No. 12-115(3) (JRT/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 4, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Ponce

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CARLOTA PONCE, Defendant,

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Date published: Jan 4, 2013

Citations

Criminal No. 12-115(3) (JRT/LIB) (D. Minn. Jan. 4, 2013)

Citing Cases

State v. Liebl

Consequently, we reject the state's legal-equivalency argument and conclude that conservation officers'…