George Frank Simpson v. United States

LEWIS, Before BREITENSTEIN and Judges. HILL, Circuit Judge. LEWIS, Circuit Appellant in the United was convicted for States District Court the District Dyer Wyoming violation, Act appeal U.S.C. 2312. On this § assigns he conviction as error the admis- sion of claimed to ob- have been through tained unlawful searches and reception seizures and into evidence prejudicial testimony particular, re- garding appellant’s prior bad acts. night 20-21, theOn of November Impala a 1962 Chevrolet two-door sedan stolen from in front of was the home Ashland, Kentucky. owner About later, 27, 1962, one week on November appellant, accompanied by hitchhiker, McMartin, Russell drove the stolen auto- Cheyenne, Wyoming. mobile into Hotel, proceeded two men to the Frontier registered where McMartin double evening, room. That McMartin went to police the local station offi- and told some suspected there cers that he auto- appellant driving mobile was stolen. He had an Ohio of title with certificate appellant pur- he him had taken from ported appellant’s ownership to establish automobile, and he asked the offi- cers to examine the certificate to deter- mine whether it inwas order. McMartin appellant attempted then stated that had very price to sell the automobile at a low in three or four towns Nebraska but buyers prospective requested that all had appellant’s identification, to see which produced. ap- had not He also stated that pellant suggested had that he transfer the McMartin, title to who could sell the auto- identification, mobile because he did have for which trouble McMartin would be generously paid. The officers examined the certificate of title and decided it had “manipulated.” been Durland, Jr., City, R. Jack Oklahoma officers,accompanied by McMartin, Okl., appellant. appellant, then set out to find and while LeRoy looking Amen, S., Atty., they V. Asst. U. Dis- for him observed the auto- Wyoming (Robert Chaffin, parked trict of mobile N. service station. At Atty., they Wyoming, U. S. District of on the time made no did search but brief), appellee. note the automobile to be a two-tone 1962 showing unnegotiated checks, and two Alabama sedan Chevrolet two-door attempted found had to sell the plates. Appellant was soon license room, price. Mc- for a low into in Nebraska sleeping in the hotel key. addition, government with his able the officers Martin admitted Myland, themselves, show that identifying officers Frank transferor After certificate, certificate, on had listed the Ohio never appellant the Ohio showed owned a in the auto- motor vehicle State the title stated was which he driving. then Ohio. The officers mobile he was appel- perfunctory conducted a trial, appellant Prior to filed a motion Finding appel- lant the room. and hearing suppress and a full identification, money nor lant neither had during by was held the trial court they him took to the arrested and him police each and federal offi- state police was for where he held station participation cers testified as to his investigation vagrancy of car theft. and leading appellant’s events arrest po- towed to The automobile was the several The motion searches. was until lice to be held it could station denied. had no war- checked The officers out. search. for the arrest and rant This record reveals to us a com Gustafson, day disregard Robert continuing by On the next plete police Special Agent Federal Bureau officers, federal, both state Investigation, appellant questioned at the protections appel afforded constitutional interroga- Cheyenne police The station. regard arrest, search and sei lant yielded tion of value Gustafson little zure. furnished to While the information then entered and examined the auto- might Wyoming police have well being mobile, stored which was probable ar served as for a federal cause Cheyenne Police, and ascertained Dyer Act, for a it rest violation license and identification num- vehicle justification ap for difficult a visualize Using bers. the vehicle identification pellant’s a and incarceration as arrest obtained, in- number so Gustafson sent vagrant. vagrant Wyoming a Under law quiries to the office Ohio and to F.B.I. is defined visible as a without determine that Alabama and was able to living means of an immoral the automobile stolen. was Gustafson Wyo.Stat. life. 3 6-221. worthless § thereafter, 1, 1962, on made December misdemeanor, Since offense is cellophane tape impression of the identi- justified arrest without warrant is not fication number and removed the license unless the offense is committed' in plate; plate impression both and the presence officer or the elements against ap- were introduced as evidence apparent the offense observation. pellant. appel- A federal warrant Wyo. 223, George, 231.P. See State v. 32 lant’s arrest obtained on November purported arrest “investi 31, 1962, days two ex- after initial gation” Wyo to the law unknown amination of automobile. No search ming. But need not decide the lawful we warrant ever obtained. for, assuming, ness of the arrest even investigation original arguendo, The F.B.I. that resulted arrest was findings produced justify from most a search of an Gustafson’s lawful would not Copies of the evidence used in the trial. in location. Preston remote registration papers from U.S. 84 the State 376 S.Ct. appel- 881, 11 Alabama were introduced to Nor can federal offi show L.Ed.2d 777. rely justifica papers upon lant had obtained the so could cers arrest he state conducting procure use them tion in in the Ohio title certifi- their own cate he after had altered the cident to the state arrest. Sirimarco v. vehicle identification on F.2d cert. number them to match 10 315 denied, 10 the stolen automobile. There was 83 evidence, testimony also form of L.Ed.2d Agent F.B.I. The searches evidence was based incorrect grounds. warrant, Gustafson, Appellant were both here did make a without timely and,

clearly he motion unlawful. On November general, and vehicle identi while hear- wrote down the license the motion was automobile; al fication numbers of the though was full and revealed the activities easily could observe the license of federal The constitutional he officers. adequately protested. number had to enter the car to see violation was be no identification number. There can government contends also questioning that visual observations object has no of an unreasonable constitute fruits since he search of the automobile inadmissible search and seizure and be had in it. Such ground, on that Williams v. United construction of the Fourth Amendment U.S.App.D.C. 41, negate totally would the effect the entry 487, illegal 489, and Gustafson’s exclusionary rule in re Weeks-McNabb1 into the car condemns the information gard to officers automobiles. Federal gathered by entry, illegal of such virtue and, could search at de cars will all including garnered material as a result prosecuted theft, fendants for automobile Wong the unreasonable search. Sun only actually those who the auto owned States, 407, 471, 371 83 U.S. S.Ct. mobiles could Fourth Amendment raise 9 in L.Ed.2d In the case at bar the objections successfully. Moreover, the encompasses admissible evidence not proof ownership would be sufficient by the identification number obtained quash prosecution of the the for theft illegal Gustafson in the search all but also rights automobile. These constitutional subsequent acquired information because belong guilty as as the in well search, of the poisonous “the fruit of the States, nocent. 335 McDonald v. United tree,” which includes the results of the 451, 191, 69 93 L.Ed. 153. U.S. S.Ct. investigation. Staples F.B.I. See prerequisite The sole to a defendant’s States, Cir., 5 320 F.2d raising the Fourth Amendment issue And tape cellophane certain it is that the possessory proprietary he claim a impression plate, acquired and thé license prop in interest seized searched 1, the second search on December erty. States, 10 See Williams v. United should not have been admitted. 90, Appellant Cir., 323 cer 94-95. tainly possessory interest government, claimed a however, con car, not objection and his was tends lack no since made was established until after the search. this appellant’s evidence and since mo suppress tion to under Fed.R.Crim.P. Appellant’s that he further contention 41(e), prior trial, heard did not concerning prejudiced by testimony was evidence, detail any appellant this has waived prior record activities criminal constitutional claim he have had specifically not Such need considered. and that the issue is not before the court. testimony by largely was volunteered ground To this for affirmance Responsi- witnesses and not recur. need government cites Williams v. United bility of wit- careful examination 90, denied, 10 cert. Attorney, District nesses lies with the 906, 376 659, U.S. 84 S.Ct. 11 L.Ed.2d so as and ultimate trial control 605, agent where an F.B.I. had made a prejudice is the to the accused avoid search, warrantless while also the defend duty of the court. jail. ants were confined This court there held was issue not before judgment conviction is reversed sup it because there was motion to new trial the case for a remanded press objection disputed and the all instructions 1. Weeks v. United 87 U.S. ed U.S. 63 S.Ct. 652; S.Ct. 58 L.Ed. McNabb v. Unit- L.Ed. 819. against guard encroachment by and at- the federal searches obtained and Fifth assured Fourth searches. to such tributable Amendments, and fundamen- these basic Rehearing On Petition largely principles illu- would become tal sory applied and seizure Judge, MURRAH, Chief Before property. personal BREITENSTEIN, LEWIS, PICKETT, general prin- Judges. independent SETH, But of the Circuit HILL and government ciples circumvents which the Judge. LEWIS, Circuit standing deny attempting subject suppress the fruits of the to searches, argument upon granted oral We hold that circumstances we rehearing in petition government’s prosecution particular confer give full consideration this case to 41(e) under invoke Rule sitting con- banc to court en expressions Supreme clear per- Simpson not “[a] was tention States, 362 Court in Jones v. United 257, aggrieved search” an unlawful son In 4 L.Ed.2d 697. 41(e) compulsion of Rule within unlawfully pos- was Jones accused Procedure. Rules Criminal the Federal of narcotics. at bar session the case our recital As stated factual Simpson of a stolen opinion, made initial car. Possession was the basis officers, or war- without consent federal prosecution possession is in Jones and possession rant, of an automobile in the for in instant the basis case, the conviction obtaining Simpson purpose for the of recently in Reese as we stated that car and that the was stolen 90, States, Cir., 341 F.2d v. United 10 possession Simpson’s un- thus actual jury “It is well that 92: established Simpson was not At such time lawful. possession of a re- infer any federal under federal arrest nor was cently in another state stolen automobile proceeding in esse. The second criminal possessor of knew that the vehicle again was made arrest but search after transported that it was stolen that he gov- without warrant consent. it in interstate commerce.” Said justifi- ernment makes no other claim concerning Supreme prosecutions Court merely for either cation search than “turning possession”:. on illicit state that the fruits of the search dis- Simpson’s possession closed that actual prosecu- “The same element in this of the ear was unlawful. dilemma, has tion which caused a Except retrospect e., possession when viewed in i. convicts that both subject search, standing, initial as it eliminates made confers pending charge, showing necessity preliminary arrest or has without for a every aspect prohibited premises in search- classic but of an interest exploratory seized, search for ordi- crime. ed or the standing Lefkowitz, narily required See United States v. 285 U.S. is is when 452, 420, 263, challenged.” 52 80 S.Ct. 76 And 362 at L.Ed. 877. U.S. retrospect to view search in be- it at S.Ct. necessary government comes very Jones, interpret nature As we bring forth the search to fruits Simpson prosecution of this accorded validity. principle sustain its This 41(e) as a Rule invoke testing of a search reasonableness aggrieved. courts have Other rejected through has been an unbroken Con similar See reached conclusions. beginning early line cases least as States, Cir., 291 F.2d treras v. United 9 Byars States, as 1927. v. 273 United Thomas, 63, 65; N.D. States United v. 28, 248, Un- U.S. 47 S.Ct. 71 L.Ed. 520. 942, Cal., F.Supp. 216 personal prop- less actual deny our erty decision We adhere is deemed sufficient interest rehearing. 41(e) petition invoke the enforcement of Rule 296 Judge (with

PICKETT, provides Circuit whom Fourth Amendment that “The joins, MURRAH, Judge, people Chief dissent- be secure their ing rehearing). persons, houses, effects, papers, on against searches and unreasonable sei- petition for rehear- Government’s * * zures, shall not be violated presented important case By Amendment, only the terms of un- questions relating seizure, to search and pro- searches and reasonable seizures are sitting Court, and was heard en Rabinowitz, hibited. United States v. argument, although banc. After the evi- 56, 430, 653; 339 94 U.S. 70 S.Ct. L.Ed. dence is without conflict auto- States, Cir., Harris v. United 151 10 F.2d question mobile had stolen and been 837, 169 331 A.L.R. aff’d accused, suppress, on motion to 1399; Draper 67 S.Ct. 91 L.Ed. any prop- did not had establish that he Cir., F.2d.295, 10 248 aff’d erty right therein that he was in 327; 358 U.S. 79 L.Ed.2d 3 legitimate possession thereof at the time Cir., Price search, majority the Court 684; United States One 1957 Ford petition concluded that should be Pickup, Cir., 21; Ranchero denied. McDonald F.2d 272. Whether a is reason- recognize While I I am depends upon able or my unreasonable minority objection decision, particular strongly each case. law, circumstances I feel so that not new For a be unreasonable it must being made, but bad is I law am con- privacy. be a violation of one’s express my disagreement. strained to I regret As said in United v. Rabinowitz States I have been to con- unable supra, my all vince associates that the decision contrary principles is to well settled “The test is not whether relevant law, unsupported single court de- procure a search reasonable cision, unnecessarily impose up- will warrant, but search was whether the investigating Dyer on officers Act viola- reasonable. That criterion turn (Title 2312, 2313), tions 18 U.S.C. §§ depends upon and facts circum- the and other offenses in which stolen auto- atmosphere stances —the total of the involved, mobiles an are intolerable strait precaution is case. It a sufficient jacket. justify that law officers must their conduct before courts which have al- Simpson prevail For to on his motion ways been, be, jealous and of must suppress, only to not must it be con right privacy the individual’s purpose identifying cluded that for the sweep within the broad the question taking the automobile the (339 Fourth U.S. at Amendment.” its serial number in his an absence was 435.) 170 S.Ct. at seizure, unreasonable search and also but it must found be that he has sustained identify only way certain an The proving the burden that when the automobile is to its serial reference made, case, search was he had number. As in this the number complain. am usually simply by open- the I satisfied that obtain can be obtained ing ing observing serial number vehicle the door and the number case, upon panel. know, however, under the this circumstances the door We did against not protection constitute unreasonable search unlawful that the any taking more did than the seizures to auto- searches and extends displayed States, license (Preston number thereon.1 The mobiles previously Trujillo has This Court held that United 294 F.2d 583. open is Petteway observation that which and See also patent does not a search. constitute 261 F.2d 53. damages may 777),2 complain and recover 11 L.Ed.2d incriminating any obtaining still it seems to me are purpose seized. Such remedies of which is number serial guilty person, pro identifying equally available to a not an unrea the vehicle is question the vided he has the sonable make a demand to citizen any taking of a search. more than is the license examining

number driver’s license. My principal objection to the decision rapidly Stolen automobiles moved wholly ignores is that it that a rule from one state to another. The owner person challenging legality of a any has as to seldom information where bringing him- search has the burden of vehicle is or who it. iden stole protection. self within the Constitutional tity of the owner can be determined holding, IAs understand the by securing identifying numbers and automobile, of a stolen without sending might them to what be termed proof ownership pos- regard “clearing house” for information merely stating session, by is the automobiles, stolen or to area owner, protection cloaks himself with the thought regis where it is is vehicle against of the Fourth Amendment not tered. The number itself evi seizure, taken from the crime, may of a but it lead dence including number, may vehicle, serial identity case, the true owner. this vehicle, suppressed to- the stolen the owner of the testified as gether material, ordered the seized automobile, the serial number his thief, returned to the who then drive did a number of other witnesses who away. F.R.Cr.P., 41(e). it Rule No relating Simpson had transactions with authority this has been cited to to the vehicle. The holds that Court view, have found none. rule and I located, owner was other as were the wit excludes, of an unlawful because vehicle, through who nesses Identified the seizure, search or use of evidence alleged use number have ordinarily competent, relevant unlawfully taken the F.B.I. been recently analyzed by in Mur- this Court Agent, all of ob therefore the evidence ray through suppressed. tained them must be Following general rule, Judge Seth, whereby, in most A situation is created language, in clear and succinct announced cases, of an automobile rule, pointed out reasons thought been stolen cannot be have to be admis- the evidence continued Possibly saying I am established. what sible until an has established obtaining accused is that a serial number per- To is not a search at invaded. from motor vehicle have been not, If it long-standing all. we reach the re petuate principle, same though sult a as it were reasonable search incorporated 41(e), F.R.Cr. in Rule meaning of within the the Constitution. ag- person P. “a This rule authorizes grieved” suppress to move use to the say It is no to that a rule con answer illegally property seized. permit trary adopted to that here would heard, trial When such a motion is promiscuously an indiscreet officer to judge required decide issues is to immunity with search automobiles fact, stand- one of which is the movant’s apply equally laws must object to to search. The burden guilty. guilty If as to who those are not upon seeking person is to take advan- is made a search an automobile with having right cause, tage probable fact, one out of the rule to establish as However, addition, may, prop- Preston should be noted federal officers dealing cases, subjected pun- to the Court was not er criminal in connec- stolen automobile. for unlawful conduct ishment 2234, tion with a 18 U.S.C. §§ search. 2235, 2236. 298 seizure, rights requires at the person time that his ored rule which at- tacking prove invalidity

were invaded. to its and instead shifts burden to The decision here based prosecution validity. It is establish proposition prerequisite that “the sole squarely contrary holding Mur- raising to a defendant’s the Fourth ray States, supra, up- pro Amendment issue is that prietary claim a held a denial of a motion to possessory interest in these words: property.”, citing searched or seized Wil States, liams v. United 10 courts, “In the federal the exclu- 90, 906, 84 659, cert. denied 376 U.S. S.Ct. sion of gal ille- secured major Apparently 11 L.Ed.2d 605. adopted search is method ity construes the Williams case as reliev privacy provided enforce ing person who, by way of a motion to Fourth Amendment to the suppress, challenges a This Constitution. was announced proving burden of his claim that States, in Weeks v. United 232 U.S. legitimately time the search he was 383, 341, 652, S.Ct. 58 L.Ed. property searched. subsequently incorporated The Williams case stands for no such 41(e) Rule of the Federal Rules making rule. After reference those this Criminal Procedure. Whether who could avail themselves the Con protec- is the best enforcement protection, stitutional this Court said: frequently tive de- device has been purpose bated. Thus the is to deter particularly applicable “This rule searches, protect unlawful directly and to in- property where the seized was taken rights constitutional from a stolen to which the accused. Goldstein v. United legal the defendants had no title or 1000, 114, 316 U.S. 62 S.Ct. possession. United States supression 86 L.Ed. 1312. The Serrano, Cir., 356; Anno. exception such evidence is thus an 8; 78 A.L.R.2d Anno. 50 § general rule that all evi- relevant 531, 10; A.L.R.2d Jones United § dence Evidence should be admitted. States, supra, [362 U.S. 80 S.Ct. sought to be excluded is admissible recognize 4 L.Ed.2d 697] until the accused has established principle.” (323 95.) F.2d at under the rule have fallacy of the rule announced here been invaded. The burden to estab- be illustrated a case where thieves necessary lish facts to sustain his Police, having break into a home. position seeking is on the being cause to believe a crime is commit- avail himself of rule. Nardone therein, ted They inquiry. decide make 308 U.S. atmet door one 307; L.Ed. Wilson v. police unknown thieves who tells the (10th 218 F.2d 754 home, it is his refuses admit them Cir.). contentions police leave, without a warrant. The but prem- here concern status way later return and force their into ises searched rather than the status the home and find evidence which leads during of the the seized identity to the and arrest of the thieves. appellant was on or search. The not Later the thieves move to the premises they were near the when evidence seized in the house all evi- searched. resulting therefrom, contending dence was that at made in know that did not untrue. the time the case at In essence, of the the search bar. Common claim of is the the ownership officers claim sense gality ^[******] “We F.2d 164 of a held in (10th Cir.), Coonv. can be raised that the le- by a occupant’ premises alone dictates that such a contention is ‘lawful of the contrary searched, by person absurd. It is whose the that is time-hon- the challenging legality rights of son the a search Other have been invaded. allege prove must was the vic- from that he this circuit refer the cases privacy. objects ownership tim an of of invasion The the interest significance require seized, interest of the Jones decision but all that relevant legitimately person person on the by if a the who is that be established made, premises The search was it to have been violated. when the claims appellant’s premises protects him. The Court Constitution recognized use of the rent the law by L. that in such cases ed Thomas and his use of R. showing existing required a at the on the second time unrented bedroom possessory Michigan or a substantial floor at 3411 Avenue was pri in The searched. an one general recreation interest occasional trespasser proof marily. premises a that Jones was not was The were searched, premises parents, law- appellant’s on fully but was owned we guest, pos- invitee, there as an find that has not estab sibly a licensee of the entitled on the that record before us lished. legiti- any event, possession. privacy he In was was invaded mately premises ade- Appellant which was on the the search. has not quate give take advan- him met his burden to facts dem show onstrating tage protection personal that his constitutional ” * * * seizure, against (Emphasis search and but unlawful were involved. changes suggests 411-412).4 supplied). (333 opinion in the at proof. relating rule holding to the burden In Jones v. United 362 U.S. circumstances that under these 725, 731, 80 S.Ct. 4 L.Ed.2d aggrieved person had was Jones 41(e) applies Court said that “Rule standing to constitutional is- raise the general principle party that a will not just sue, interest Court stated: “No protec- be heard to claim a constitutional in the effective of the Government rigorous ‘belongs tion unless he class for criminal law enforcement protection whose sake the constitutional recognizing hampered that will be given.’ People State N. Y. ex premises legitimately anyone on the Reardon, 152, 160, rel. Hatch v. 204 U.S. challenge * * * occurs where 188, 190, 27 S.Ct. 51 L.Ed. 415. by way suppress, legality motion to of a Ordinarily, then, entirely proper it is proposed to used fruits be when its require challenge of one who seeks to against not would course him. This legality sup- of a search as the basis wrong- who, by their avail those virtue of pressing allege, relevant that he privacy presence, invoke cannot ful allegation disputed if and establish, that he (Emphasis premises searched.” he himself the victim was (362 at supplied.) privacy.” of an invasion of The rule 734.) clearly could not be more stated. The regard- holding exclusionary Jones case rule as stated Jones and sepa- premised ing standing on two Murray effectuating was ais means of First, grounds. protection privacy rate and distinct which stand- per- discussed above cases situation individuals. These hold that judgment Supreme summarily 4. The Court vacated assumed that must be undisputed judgment Murray in the case and re- vacated because Appeals Murray’s presence on the manded it the Court of showed “legitimate.” Murray premises further consideration. searched does not S.Ct. 1345. The reason for the conviction reversal restrict, limit, Supreme ap- re- or even not Court’s action does manner requires pear order, de- dis- but the record rule fer case, when seeks of his motion to criminal closes suppress Murray fendant un- suppress an because of established that to search, belonged par- premises of the burden to his to sustain searched lawful proof complain standing them, he has ents and that he to use was free that stayed night. and often there over It of search. BOO

ing upon legiti requisite is suppress. based the defendant’s ato motion to To the presence” searched, premises contrary, “legitimate in mate it holds first that second, type presence” possessory that of in case which is a sufficient inter- standing by premises give of arises of the nature est in the virtue searched to charged. is, standing, secondly, the offense in That those it holds that allegation peculiar in type posses- offenses which the of owner in the of where case ship possession usually required or sion would both convict and confer stand- ing, suppress allegation motion ad would be an affirmative of owner- ship ordinarily possession required mission of the sole or essential nec element essary guilt. petition necessary. establish On sustain standing motion is not rehearing, the Court the hold of construes is found because the offense point involved, any on the latter so toas confer and not of al- because such upon Simpson aggrieved legation. aspect status of an This of the Jones case possession solely application because the rule that should be in limited recently of a peculiar type offense, stolen automobile is suffi to that may jury Dyer cient evidence from which a should not be extended to Act cases infer the essential of the of or elements similar as the do. cases Court would fense. See Reese Simp- No in one contends this case that Cir., However, 341 F.2d 90. in Jones possessory right son owned had a prosecution, volved a narcotics and that any Admittedly kind in the automobile. portion opinion conferring stand Simp- the automobile was a stolen one. ing upon the defendant there and the rea right son had no to be in the application son therefor have no in this place, acquired right first no better possession case. The of narcotics in it get back into it once he left it. He had crime, Dyer self is a but not so with a anyone no to forbid to enter it. by Act offense. The dilemma found hearing At the on the motion to Judge Connolly Medalie, in 629, Hand proof posses- he offered his Cir., and overcome Jus apparently sion. decision turns Jones, tice Frankfurter was that prior his statement to officers accused, to be able to sustain a motion search that he owned the automobile. suppress evidence, allege forced unsupported If such an statement at the possessor he was the owner or standing time of arrest suffi- establishes property property, contraband e.—i. protection cient to invoke the Con- possession which, mere provision prohibiting stitutional unrea- charged. constituted the crime There seizures, sonable searches and it amounts fore, if the defendant failed sustain requirement ato nullification of suppress, the motion to he stood convict prove he interest in the But, ed his own mere admission. produced hearing on at the possession of a stolen car not is a crime Surely suppress. the motion to it cannot meaning within the of 18 § U.S.C. be contended thief it, standing alone, nor does establish greater right anof has guilt. The rule in Reese v. United application than a rule supra, quoted by merely a the Court is trespasser property. on real The end quantum rule of evidence which fixes the Simpson permitted result proof necessary jury quest to create a very property use which stole ion.5 immunity. al- a cloak Courts should aspect holding ways diligent preventing In neither of its low- does depart ering protect the Jones case rule which of the barriers which requires showing citizens, pre- as a of our but individual liberties solely Contreras be based convictions Thomas, upon proof possession, United States v. and hence D.C.N.D.Calif., F.Supp. authority position taken. cited not by the Court both involved offenses diligence per- of this in the exercise members

sonal and completely over- public should not be of those who have benefit

looked regard As said United for either. Ventresca, 102, at 380 U.S. States L.Ed.2d system justice is vital that “responsive both maintained which liberty and the individual the needs See, also, community.” rights of the

Hollingsworth

321 F.2d 342. grant petition for rehear-

I would aifirm the conviction. MILLER, Appellant,

James E. Warden, CROUSE, Kansas

Sherman H. Kansas, Lansing, Penitentiary, State Appellee.

No. 7927. Appeals

United States Court

Tenth Circuit.

June

Case Details

Case Name: George Frank Simpson v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Date Published: May 28, 1965

Citation: 346 F.2d 291

Docket Number: 7427

Court Abbreviation: 10th Cir.