Jerry G. Gundlach v. Theodore J. Janing, Sheriff
Jerry G. GUNDLACH, Appellant, v. Theodore J. JANING, Sheriff, Et Al., Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Jerry G. Gundlach, a Nebraska state prisoner, brings this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition claiming that his state convictions for receiving stolen goods and automobiles 1
were tainted by evidence discovered through search and seizure of his property made in violation of his fourth amendment constitutional rights. His claims arise from an initial search of his property made by a private party. Petitioner asserts that the search violated his constitutional rights because the Omaha Police Department, upon being informed that the private party was considering making a search, did not notify the private party that a search would possibly be illegal, nor dissuade that party from making that search.
The record discloses that the Omaha police did not participate in the questioned search or in any way encourage the private party to conduct the search. The fourth amendment affords no protection against a wrongful search and seizure of property by an individual absent any government participation.
Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921);
cf. United States v. Luciow, 518 F.2d 298, 300 (8th Cir. 1975);
United States v. Burton, 475 F.2d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1973).
The district court (Judge Robert V. Denney) in a well-reasoned and persuasive opinion denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. We agree and affirm on the basis of that opinion.
2
1
. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s convictions, State v. Gundlach, 192 Neb. 692 , 224 N.W.2d 167 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 933 , 95 S.Ct. 1663 , 44 L.Ed.2d 92 (1975).
2
.
Gundlach v. Janing, 401 F.Supp. 1089 (D.Neb. 1975).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 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.