1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. U.S. v. BANKS
 

U.S. v. BANKS

Case No. 5:13-cr-40060-DDC.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALBERT DEWAYNE BANKS et al. Defendant.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

August 29, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Albert Dewayne Banks, CUSTODY, Defendant (1), represented by Thomas D. Haney , Stevens & Brand, LLP.

Steven James Clark, Defendant (2), represented by Gary D. Stone , New Brotherhood Bank Building.

Charles Foster, BOND, Defendant (3), represented by Thomas R. Telthorst .

Patricia Bridget Foy, Defendant (4), represented by Thomas H. Johnson , Petefish, Immel, Heeb & Hird, LLP.

Johnny Lee Ivory, III, Defendant (5), represented by Wendel S. Toth , Garretson, Webb & Toth, LLC.

Martye Madabuti Madkins, III, Defendant (6), represented by Branden A. Bell , Brown & Ruprecht, PC & Sarah G. Hess , Brown & Ruprecht, PC.

Zachary Carlyle Patmon, Defendant (7), represented by Forrest A. Lowry , Bezek, Lowry & Hendrix.

Otis Dean Ponds, CUSTODY, Defendant (8), represented by James C. Heathman .

Barbara Michelle Shaw, CUSTODY also known as Barbara Michelle Johnson, Defendant (9), represented by Michael M. Jackson .

Anthony Carlyle Thompson, Defendant (10), represented by Kathleen A. Ambrosio , Ambrosio & Ambrosio Chtd..

Whitnie Ann Livingston, Defendant (11), represented by Jason P. Hoffman , Hoffman & Hoffman.

Walter Bernard Taylor, formerly known as Walter Bernard Banks, Defendant (12), represented by Kevin W. Babbit , Fagan Emert & Davis LLC.

Jason Jermaine Dixon, Defendant (13), represented by Michael G. Highland .

Karen Antoinette Johnson, Defendant (14), represented by Stephen W. Kessler .

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony W. Mattivi , Office of United States Attorney & Jared S. Maag , Office of United States Attorney.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANIEL D. CRABTREE, District Judge.

Defendants Taylor, Thompson, and Makdins have filed motions to suppress intercepted text messages, and other defendants have joined their motions (Doc. 351, 356, 375). Defendants argue, among other things, that the Court must suppress text message evidence because investigators intercepted them pursuant to orders, which, on their face, authorized interception of wire communications...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases