TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Robert Anthony Evans

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Anthony EVANS, Appellant

United States v. Evans, 519 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1975)
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
June 27, 1975
Docket
No. 75-1672
Judges
Carter, Goodwin, Kennedy, Per Curiam
Citations
519 F.2d 1083

Opinion — Per Curiam

OPINION PER CURIAM:

Evans appeals his conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d) (unregistered sawed-off shotgun). The only issue is whether the district court’s finding that Evans “voluntarily” consented to the search of his automobile was clearly erroneous in light of the coercive environment of the search.

Plain-clothes narcotics officers who had been keeping Evans under surveillance approached his automobile with drawn guns and ordered Evans and his friends to “freeze”. After a pat down search produced no weapons, the officers told Evans that they were investigating reported narcotics transactions and asked if they could search his vehicle. Evans said, “Go ahead.” The search produced no narcotics, but did produce the incriminating shotgun.

Evans contended throughout the proceedings below, and in this court, that when the evidence is considered in its entirety under the test of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), the theory of voluntary consent cannot be supported.

A month after the search, however, Evans told an interviewing officer that his consent was voluntary. This, taken together with the inference that Evans knew the search would not yield narcotics, and the testimony of the officers that they advised Evans of his right to refuse, gives adequate support for the trial court’s finding that the consent was voluntarily given.

The trial judge heard the evidence, and considered the demeanor of the witnesses and the inferences to be drawn from their testimony. We cannot say that his findings were clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (when plainclothes officers approached defendant's automobile with guns drawn, ordered him to "freeze," and asked if they could search vehicle, defendant's consent, under totality of circumstances, was voluntary)
  • (when "[a] month after the search, . . . [defendant] told an investigator that his consent was voluntary," that fact, taken together with other relevant circumstances, "g[ave] adequate support for the trial court's finding that the consent was voluntarily given")
1976: 11993: 22008: 119762026peak 1993 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Martinez v. State624 So. 2d 711 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
  2. United States v. Heriberto Pacheco-Ruiz549 F.2d 1204 (9th Cir. 1976)
  3. Kennedy v. State640 So. 2d 22 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
  4. Ex Parte Bridgett1 So. 3d 1057 (Ala. 2008)

Most recent

  1. Ex Parte Bridgett1 So. 3d 1057 (Ala. 2008)
  2. Kennedy v. State640 So. 2d 22 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
  3. Martinez v. State624 So. 2d 711 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
  4. United States v. Heriberto Pacheco-Ruiz549 F.2d 1204 (9th Cir. 1976)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) 10,013

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