252 A.2d 897 | D.C. | 1969
After being arrested for driving in the District of Columbia without an operator’s
Prior to trial in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions on the charges of operating a motor vehicle without a permit in violation of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Regulations of the District of Columbia, possession of a prohibited weapon (metal knuckles),
On December 13, 1967, indictments were filed against appellant in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for violation of the Federal Narcotics Law
Appellant now contends on appeal that the decision of the District Court is controlling and it was error on the part of the Court of General Sessions to deny the motion to suppress the evidence in this case; or, in any event, and independent of any determination in the United States District Court, the searches and seizures of evidence from the person of appellant and from his automobile were, under the facts presented, unlawful and the evidence obtained thereby should not have been admitted in appellant’s trial in the Court of General Sessions. We find no merit to either contention.
Appellant seeks to demonstrate the binding effect of the District Court order by characterizing that court as “superior” and the Court of General Sessions as “inferior,” seemingly implying that the decision of the District Court is “superior” to that of the Court of General Sessions. The terms “superior” and “inferior,” when applied to judicial administration, are used solely to refer to the jurisdiction of one court to review decisions of another court. 21 C.J.S. Courts § 7 (1940). Such is not the case here. The Court of General Sessions and the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia exercise concurrent jurisdiction over certain matters of a criminal nature. D.C.Code, 1967, §§ 11-521 and 11-963. Neither possesses appellate jurisdiction over the other.
Furthermore, this is not a situation requiring the application of the
We find no valid basis upon which to hold the order of the District Court binding upon the Court of General Sessions.
Appellant was lawfully arrested for operating his car without a valid permit
The search of the car after appellant’s narcotics arrest occurred within minutes of the time he was charged with that offense.
Similarly, where officers have probable cause to arrest a defendant, the subsequent search of his person for evi
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, not being bound by the ruling of the District Court in granting the motion to suppress the evidence in the cases charging violations of the Federal Narcotics Law and for carrying a pistol without a license, the denial of the motion to suppress in the cases in the Court of General Sessions charging possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of numbers slips was proper. We also find that the record contains ample evidence to support appellant’s convictions in the trial court for these offenses.
Affirmed.
. D.C.Code, 1967, § 22-3214.
. D.C.Code, 1967, § 22-1502.
. Appellant raises no question as to the validity of his arrest and conviction for driving without a license, for which he received a suspended sentence.
. 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) ; 21 U.S.C. § 174.
. D.C.Code, 1967, § 22-3204.
. Laughlin v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 93, 344 F.2d 187 (1965); United States v. Cowart, 118 F.Supp. 903 (D.D.C.1954).
. Epstein v. Chatham Park, Inc., 2 Storey 56, 52 Del. 56, 153 A.2d 180 (1959).
. Compare United States v. Fuller, 277 F.Supp. 97 (D.D.C.1967).
. Mincy v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 218 A.2d 507 (1966).
. There is no contention upon the part of appellant that this arrest was not without probable cause.
. Chappell v. United States, 119 U.S. App.D.C. 356, 342 F.2d 935 (1965).
. IUd.