Eddie Pearl Clayton v. United States
Eddie Pearl CLAYTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted on two substantive counts (possession and sale) of heroin, and one count of conspiracy to conceal and sell heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 174 .
Appellant first urges that Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed.2d 57 , (1969), is controlling. We hold it is not, by its express terms.
Id.
at 45 , 89 S.Ct. 1553 n. 92. Thus, Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178 , 45 S.Ct. 470 , 69 L.Ed. 904 (1925), still controls.
Appellant next suggests the heroin was seized after a warrantless and hence illegal search and seizure of his air express shipment — either (a) by the employees of the airline, or (b) Los Angeles police officers, or (c) by both of them, or (d) by Chicago officers.
This heroin was clearly discovered as a result of a private search which was, hence, not unlawful. Gold v. United States, 378 F.2d 588, 591 (9th Cir. 1967).
The subsequent acts of the police did not constitute a search. Wolf Low v. United States, 391 F.2d 61, 63 (9th Cir. 1968).
The exigencies of time and the possible removal of the contraband to another state created an emergency — an “exigent circumstance.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950); Boyden v. United States, 363 F.2d 551, 554 (9th Cir. 1966).
The facts of this case are not like Corngold v. United States, 367 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1966), but are closely parallel to United States v. Spencer, No. 22,623 (9th Cir., filed May 27, 1969).
We affirm.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 22 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.