The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Okafor, 285 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002):
Okafor claims the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search of his suitcase and the statements obtained as a fruit of that search. We review de novo a motion to suppress. See United States v. Percy, 250 F.3d 720, 725 (9th Cir.2001).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.