TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. George Curtis Bird

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Curtis BIRD, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Bird, 456 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1972)
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
February 29, 1972
Docket
No. 71-2832
Judges
Bell, Dyer, Clark
Citations
456 F.2d 10231972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11022

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Bird appeals from a jury conviction of facilitating the transportation of illegally imported marihuana, knowing the same to have been illegally imported in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a (1961). We affirm.

Bird maintains that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to infer a knowledge of illegal importation and was insufficient to show that the marihuana had actually been illegally imported. Considered in the light most favorable to the Government, the proof showed Bird knew the following facts. He was hired by a man in Albuquerque, New Mexico to travel over 800 miles to Laredo, Texas, a city on the Mexican border, to pick up a special strain of marihuana known as Acapulco Gold and transport it back to Albuquerque. Bird and a companion checked into a Laredo motel and left their pickup in the motel parking lot with the keys in the ignition. Subse *1024 quently some unknown person drove off in the pickup and remained away for approximately an hour. When the truck was returned, Bird looked into the special compartment mounted on the pickup bed and observed that the Acapulco Gold was present. Bird and his companion thereupon began their journey back to Albuquerque, but were arrested at a border cheek point 8 miles north of Laredo. A search of the compartment revealed one hundred and sixty-eight pounds of marihuana in three Mexican coffee sacks with Spanish language markings, and in one American bag marked “Beans”. This evidence was sufficient to create an issue for the jury as to whether the marihuana was illegally imported and the defendant had knowledge thereof.

See United States v. Maggard, 451 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1971).

Bird next asserts that the marihuana should have been suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. Bird contends that the immigration officials could not search the compartment without probable cause since it was not a spot likely to contain aliens. But even if it were, Bird argues that these officials could not examine the sacks since certainly no aliens could be hidden in coffee sacks. The compartment, which was six feet by three feet by twenty inches, was large enough to conceal an alien. In fact, it was the only enclosed area of the truck in which an alien could be secreted. Furthermore, once the compartment was opened and the coffee sacks came into view, these officials, who had also been commissioned as Customs Officers, had the authority to inspect the sacks.

See United States v. Maggard, supra.

Finally, Bird contends that only hearsay evidence was presented at his preliminary hearing and to the grand jury. This point is without merit.

See United States v. Klaes, 453 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1972).

The judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1972: 21973: 61975: 11978: 119722026peak 1973 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. David Jefferies Thompson475 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir. 1973)
  2. United States v. Lawrence Edward Hart506 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1975)
  3. United States v. Oscar Pequeno De Leon462 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1972)
  4. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States413 U.S. 266 (1973)
  5. United States v. Richard McDaniel463 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1972)
  6. United States v. Nelson Cruz478 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1973)

Most recent

  1. United States v. George F. Brown574 F.2d 1274 (5th Cir. 1978)
  2. United States v. Lawrence Edward Hart506 F.2d 887 (5th Cir. 1975)
  3. United States v. Mary Elaine Black Storm480 F.2d 701 (5th Cir. 1973)
  4. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States413 U.S. 266 (1973)
  5. United States v. Nelson Cruz478 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1973)
  6. United States v. George Truett Settles, Jr.481 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir. 1973)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Maggard, 451 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1971) 33
United States v. Klaes, 453 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1972) 4

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