USA v. Master Michael Ramsey, No. 09-13876 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 09-13876 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 28, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-00058-CR-CDL-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MASTER MICHAEL RAMSEY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia _________________________ (April 28, 2010) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Master Michael Ramsey appeals his convictions for felony murder, 18 U.S.C. § 1111, kidnapping, id. § 1201, murder with a firearm during a crime of violence, id. §§ 924(c)(1), (j), robbery, id. § 2111, theft of a motor vehicle, id. § 2119, and conspiracy to commit robbery, id. §§ 2111, 371. Ramsey argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. We affirm. Ramsey argues that the search of his vehicle was invalid under state law and rendered the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but this argument fails. The failure of law enforcement officers to comply with the demands of state law regarding the search and seizure of property does not affect the admissibility of evidence in federal court. United States v. Gilbert, 942 F.2d 1537, 1541 (11th Cir. 1991). Evidence is admissible so long as it was not obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant s immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223 24, 80 S. Ct. 1437, 1447 (1960), and Ramsey does not argue that the search or seizure otherwise violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court did not err by admitting at trial the evidence seized from Ramsey s vehicle. Ramsey s convictions are AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
