TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Otto Hughes Linnear

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otto Hughes LINNEAR, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Linnear, 464 F.2d 355 (9th Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 14, 1972
Docket
No. 71-3081
Judges
Barnes, Hufstedler, Per Curiam, Schnacke
Citations
464 F.2d 3551972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8417

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of five counterfeit $100 Federal -Reserve notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 . The counterfeit was found in defendant’s possession during a search by the Los Angeles police following his arrest without a warrant. He was arrested while in the company of one Freeman. Information and events preceding the arrest indicated that Freeman had engaged in an illegal cocaine transaction inside a building some distance away from the point of arrest, while defendant and a Miss Tibbs waited outside in an automobile. The latter subsequently drove Freeman and defendant to a liquor store, which defendant and Freeman entered while Miss Tibbs remained outside in the car.

There is some dispute as to whether the arrest was made in the liquor store, only on the basis of defendant’s association with Freeman, or outside the store after a partially smoked marijuana butt had been found in the rear of the car, where Freeman had been sitting, and a gelatin capsule (not otherwise described) had been found in Miss Tibbs’ purse. Even if it be assumed that the arrest was made outside, after the discovery of the “evidence”, it was without probable cause to believe defendant guilty of any offense.

There was no justification for the warrantless arrest of defendant who was, for all that appears, a mere bystander or accompanier. United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581 , 68 S.Ct. 222 , 92 L.Ed. 210 . It follows that the counterfeit was illegally obtained, was not admissible in evidence and should have been ordered suppressed on defendant’s timely motion. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 ; F.R.Crim.Proc., Rule 41(e).

The judgment of conviction is reversed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1973: 11975: 11976: 11979: 11981: 11990: 119732026peak 1973 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Jose Hector Franco638 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir. 1981)
  2. United States v. Christopher Patrick, Linda Taylor and Christopher Patrick899 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1990)
  3. United States v. Joseph A. Chadwick532 F.2d 773 (1st Cir. 1976)
  4. United States v. Lawrence Stevens509 F.2d 683 (8th Cir. 1975)
  5. United States v. Karen R. Young and Nathaniel J. Pugh598 F.2d 296 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
  6. People v. Easterbrook43 A.D.2d 719 (1973)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Christopher Patrick, Linda Taylor and Christopher Patrick899 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1990)
  2. United States v. Jose Hector Franco638 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir. 1981)
  3. United States v. Karen R. Young and Nathaniel J. Pugh598 F.2d 296 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
  4. United States v. Joseph A. Chadwick532 F.2d 773 (1st Cir. 1976)
  5. United States v. Lawrence Stevens509 F.2d 683 (8th Cir. 1975)
  6. People v. Easterbrook43 A.D.2d 719 (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
Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) 10,714
United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) 1,213

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