United States v. Trestyn, No. 10-8029 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendants-Appellants Adam Trestyn and Crystal Herren both challenged the district court proceedings that led to their guilty pleas for possession with the intent to distribute "ecstasy." Herren argued that the district court denied her Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it refused to continue a suppression hearing until her attorney-of-choice was present. Both defendants argued that the district court denied their Fourth Amendment rights by refusing to suppress the drugs discovered in their minivan during a traffic stop. After a thorough review of the lower court's record, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court did not deny Defendant Herren her Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, but that the district court was wrong in denying Defendants' motion to suppress the drugs found during the traffic stop. The Court vacated Defendants' sentences and remanded their cases for further proceedings.
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.