TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bernard G. McCusker v. Hoyt C. Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary

Bernard G. McCUSKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hoyt C. CUPP, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee

McCusker v. Cupp, 541 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1976)
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
September 8, 1976
Docket
No. 75-2818
Judges
Duniway, Kilkenny, Per Curiam, Real
Citations
541 F.2d 8501976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7217

Opinion — Per Curiam

OPINION Before DUNIWAY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and REAL, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The district court denied McCusker’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus ( 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ) after an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to our mandate in McCusker v. Cupp, 9 Cir., 1974, 506 F.2d 459 . We affirm.

McCusker contends that he was arrested on a pretext so that he might be searched. The search turned up a quantity of amphetamines and McCusker was later charged and convicted of possession of dangerous drugs. Additionally, he contends that, even if the arrest were valid, there was no legitimate purpose in detaining him and searching him, because he was arrested in the office of a Justice of the Peace prior to his arraignment on an earlier charge and could then have been arraigned and made bail on the charge for which he was arrested the second time, without being taken to the jail, booked and searched.

The trial judge found that the arrest was not a pretext for searching him.

See Taglavore v. United States, 9 Cir., 1961, 291 F.2d 262, 265 . The judge’s finding is not clearly erroneous; he accepted the prosecutor’s version of the reasons for charging McCusker, reasons which did not involve the probability of possessing drugs.

Likewise, McCusker has not demonstrated that his brief detention for booking was unreasonable given the fact that he was charged with a felony, that he had called his attorney, and that he did not wish to be arraigned until his attorney arrived. Under these circumstances, the booking and inventory search were routine.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1987: 119872026peak 1987 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Enrique Espinosa827 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1987)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Enrique Espinosa827 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1987)

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
Taglavore v. United States, 291 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1961) 161
McCusker v. Cupp, 506 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1974) 7

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