Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/780-F-3d-1064-11th-Cir-2015-13-13780-United-States-v-Hollis-597803974
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 12:32:15
Document Index: 318476837

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 922']

780 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2015), 13-13780, United States v. Hollis - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 597803974
Docket Nº: 13-13780
Citation: 780 F.3d 1064, 25 Fla.L.Weekly Fed. C 993
Party Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHEDRICK D. HOLLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Attorney: For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Susan R. Redmond, Jonathan Ross, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sandra J. Stewart, George L. Beck Jr., Jared H. Morris, U.S. Attorney's Office, Montgomery, AL. For Shedrick D. Hollis, Defendant - Appellant: Richard Michael Kemmer Jr., Stephanie Woodha...
Judge Panel: Before WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and HAIKALA,[*] District Judge.
In February 2011, officers were searching for defendant Shedrick Hollis based on an outstanding Georgia arrest warrant for a parole violation. Law enforcement learned that Hollis could be found in an apartment the officers suspected to be a drug house. After surrounding the apartment, the officers saw Hollis through a window, broke through the door, and arrested him, and other officers conducted... (see full summary)
780 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2015)
25 Fla.L.Weekly Fed. C 993
SHEDRICK D. HOLLIS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 13-13780
This appeal requires us to decide whether the subject of an arrest warrant may challenge the use of evidence found in plain view during a protective sweep in a third party's residence. Law enforcement officers possessed an arrest warrant for Shedrick Hollis and learned that he could be found in an apartment the officers suspected to be a drug house. After surrounding the apartment, the officers saw Hollis through a window, broke through the door, and arrested him, and other officers conducted a protective sweep of the apartment. During that sweep, the officers discovered marijuana and firearms in plain view. After he was indicted on charges of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, id. § § 922(g)(1), 924(e), Hollis moved to suppress the drugs and firearms found in the apartment. The district court denied his motion. Hollis was convicted on all counts. Because the evidence was discovered in plain view during
A federal grand jury indicted Hollis on two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and one count of felony possession of a firearm, id. § § 922(g)(1), 924(e). Before trial, Hollis moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the apartment on the ground that the officers conducted an illegal, warrantless search in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and found that Hollis was not invited into...