TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Shelton v. United States

Shelton v. United States, 197 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 4, 1952
Docket
No. 13995_1
Judges
Hutcheson, Per Curiam, Russell, Strum
Citations
197 F.2d 827

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Complaining of a search and seizure made in connection with his arrest at 4910 Alameda Avenue, El Paso, Texas, appellant, petitioner below, filed a petition for the return of seized property and the suppression of its use as evidence against him in any criminal proceeding.

The matter having come on for hearing and been fully heard, the district judge, upon evidence which came in without dispute that the search and seizure was not unreasonable, entered an order 1

denying the petition and this appeal followed.

2

Here insisting that the search, though made in connection with his lawful arrest was not such a mere incidental search as under the applicable authorities 3

is reasonable, but was of the general exploratory kind which is forbidden, appellant, invoking Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 623 , 6 S.Ct. 524 , 29 L.Ed. 746 ; Agnello v. U. S., 269 U.S. 20 , 46 S.Ct. 4 , 70 L.Ed. 145 , and Go-Bart Importing Co. v. U. S., 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed. 374 , urges upon us that the judgment was erroneous and must be reversed.

We do not think so. We are fully mindful of the statement in the majority opinion, in U. S. v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S., at page 66, 70 S.Ct. at page 435, 94 L.Ed. 653 r “ * * * law officers must justify their conduct before courts which have always been, and must be, jealous of the individual’s right of privacy within the broad sweep of the Fourth Amendment.”

and of the solemn warnings set down so carefully in the minority opinion. Mindful. also that reasonableness is in the first-instance for the district judge to determine, we are of the opinion that the record furnishes us no basis for disregarding his finding and conclusion on that issue.

The order appealed from is Affirmed.

1

. “Order “Filed January 18, 1952.

“On this, the 18th day of January, 1952, came on to be heard the above entitled and numbered cause, same being a petition asking that an inventory be furnished of the property involved, that Mr. D. K. Brown, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, be directed that said property be returned to petitioner, and that it be supjiressed as evidence against him in any criminal proceeding. Petitioner appeared in person and by B. P. Langford and Frank Ainsa, and the Government appeared by and through Assistant United States Attorney Holvey Williams, and all parties announced ready for trial. Evidence was heard, together with arguments of counsel. It was agreed in open Court that the arrest of petitioner was legal and that D. K. Brown would cooperate with counsel for petitioner in preparing an inventory of the property. The Court is of the opinion that all of the property now retained by D. K. Brown and listed in the inventory filed with instant petition consists of tools, implements, and things used or fitted to be Used in falsely making, forging, altering, and counterfeiting securities and in aiding in the falsely making, forging, and altering of titles to stolon automobiles and in facilitating in the transportation of stolen automobiles and falsely made securities.

“It is, therefore, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the said D. K. Brown will aid and assist counsel for petitioner in preparing a more minute inventory when requested to do so and the petition for the return of the property be, and the same is hereby denied, and the petition that it be suppressed as evidence in any criminal ti’ial be, and the same is hereby denied and the same is hereby found to 'be legally retained and admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding.

“R. E. Thomason “United States District Judge.”

2

. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 ; Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221 , 49 S.Ct. 118 , 73 L.Ed. 275 ; Perlman v. U. S., 247 U.S. 7 , 38 S.Ct. 417 , 62 L.Ed. 950 ; In re Milburne, 2 Cir., 77 F.2d 310 .

3

. U. S. v. Pisano, 7 Cir., 193 F.2d 361 ; Marron v. U. S., 275 U.S. 192 , 48 S.Ct. 74 , 72 L.Ed. 231 ; Harris v. U. S., 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 ; U. S. v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1953: 11957: 119532026peak 1953 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. J. Paul Shelton v. United States246 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1957)
  2. Henderson v. United States206 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1953)

Most recent

  1. J. Paul Shelton v. United States246 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1957)
  2. Henderson v. United States206 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1953)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 11

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950) 1,635
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 2,909
Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 (1925) 1,234
Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927) 1,133
Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 (1947) 1,087
Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921) 1,039
Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 (1931) 683
Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918) 430
Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221 (1929) 220
United States v. Pisano, 193 F.2d 361 (7th Cir. 1951) 37
In re Milburne, 77 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1935) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list