United States v. Sean Feeney, United States of America v. Janice Penny-Feeney

Good Law
93 Daily Journal DAR 1457·984 F.2d 1053·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 1411·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 736
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 1, 199391-10589, 91-10606California1,267 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiggins, J.

Defendant Janice Penny-Feeney and her husband, co-defendant Sean Feeney, appeal the district court’s denial of their various motions to suppress physical evidence in their federal drug and firearm prosecution. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . The Feeneys’ appeal was timely filed under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

I. FACTS

A detailed description of the investigatory and factual background of this case is provided in the district court’s erudite and well-reasoned opinion, which is reported at United States v. Penny-Feeney, 773 F.Supp. 220 (D.Hawaii 1991). We briefly summarize that background below.

Defendant Janice Penny-Feeney and her husband, co-defendant Sean Feeney, were indicted on January 9, 1991, on three counts involving federal drug and firearm violations. The indictment stemmed from an investigation that lasted approximately two years and that culminated in a raid on the Feeneys’ Hawaii home on April 3, 1990. The Feeneys moved to suppress all physical evidence that was seized pursuant to a state search warrant authorizing the April 3, 1990, raid. The search warrant was based on an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.