Eddie Pearl Clayton v. United States , 413 F.2d 297 ( 1969 )


Menu:
  • 413 F.2d 297

    Eddie Pearl CLAYTON, Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

    No. 22846.

    United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

    June 9, 1969.

    E. Myron Bull, Jr., (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

    Irving Prager, (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

    Before BARNES and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and KILKENNY, District Judge.*

    PER CURIAM:

    1

    Appellant was convicted on two substantive counts (possession and sale) of heroin, and one count of conspiracy to conceal and sell heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 174.

    2

    Appellant first urges that Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S. Ct. 1532, 23 L. Ed. 2d 57, (1969), is controlling. We hold it is not, by its express terms. Id. at 45, 89 S. Ct. 1553 n. 92. Thus, Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178, 45 S. Ct. 470, 69 L. Ed. 904 (1925), still controls.

    3

    Appellant next suggests the heroin was seized after a warrantless and hence illegal search and seizure of his air express shipment — either (a) by the employees of the airline, or (b) Los Angeles police officers, or (c) by both of them, or (d) by Chicago officers.

    4

    This heroin was clearly discovered as a result of a private search which was, hence, not unlawful. Gold v. United States, 378 F.2d 588, 591 (9th Cir. 1967).

    5

    The subsequent acts of the police did not constitute a search. Wolf Low v. United States, 391 F.2d 61, 63 (9th Cir. 1968).

    6

    The exigencies of time and the possible removal of the contraband to another state created an emergency — an "exigent circumstance." United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S. Ct. 430, 94 L. Ed. 653 (1950); Boyden v. United States, 363 F.2d 551, 554 (9th Cir. 1966).

    7

    The facts of this case are not like Corngold v. United States, 367 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1966), but are closely parallel to United States v. Spencer, No. 22,623 (9th Cir., filed May 27, 1969).

    8

    We affirm.

    Notes:

    *

    Honorable John F. Kilkenny, United States District Judge, Portland, Oregon, sitting by designation

Document Info

Docket Number: 22846

Citation Numbers: 413 F.2d 297

Judges: Barnes, Carter, Kilkenny, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 6/9/1969

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/4/2023

Cited By (18)

United States v. Jose Alberto Ugarte-Veizaga , 420 F.2d 677 ( 1970 )

United States v. Robert H. Blanton, III , 479 F.2d 327 ( 1973 )

Tony Chisum, Jr. v. United States , 421 F.2d 207 ( 1970 )

United States v. Stephen M. Issod , 508 F.2d 990 ( 1975 )

United States v. William Echols, A/K/A Steve Page , 477 F.2d 37 ( 1973 )

United States v. Richard Alan Haes, D/B/A H & H ... , 551 F.2d 767 ( 1977 )

People v. Hively , 173 Colo. 485 ( 1971 )

United States v. Joseph Stanley, United States of America v.... , 422 F.2d 826 ( 1969 )

United States v. Dennis E. Pryba , 502 F.2d 391 ( 1974 )

United States v. David Douglas Ogden , 485 F.2d 536 ( 1973 )

Celia Gonzalez Ramirez v. United States , 419 F.2d 1330 ( 1970 )

People v. Baker , 96 Cal. Rptr. 760 ( 1970 )

Miramontes v. Superior Court , 102 Cal. Rptr. 182 ( 1972 )

People v. Howard , 99 Cal. Rptr. 47 ( 1971 )

State v. Birdwell , 6 Wash. App. 284 ( 1972 )

State v. Bookout , 281 So. 2d 215 ( 1973 )

State v. Wolfe , 5 Wash. App. 153 ( 1971 )

United States v. Burton , 341 F. Supp. 302 ( 1972 )

View All Citing Opinions »