*1 rights оne 18, having the same age of 21, indeed have the age of does over America, UNITED STATES of liquor. purchase Plaintiff-Appellee, disability plaintiff’s In the instant аge by virtue of his and mar- removed BASS, Kenneth Wilbur Darrell Edward injury July time occurred on riage at the Field, Hugh Hand and 26, 1973; 1975, 19, delayed until March Defendants-Appellants. action; and therefore filing this before count is barred negligence plaintiff’s No. 76-3087. of limitations. See Ala. one-year statute Code, 7, Appeals, States Court оf Title § Fifth Circuit. remaining to the respect
With contract party beneficiary based on third count 4,May 1977. opinion court is of the theory, 6,1977. Rehearing Denied June In position. in no better order plaintiff is there to be claim for breach of contract, duty inspect must arise inspect the duty And if is a
thereunder. contrаct, it is part of insurance obligation in the insurer’s contractual
supplying responsibility financial for the role,
employer. “employ- In that he is the [Ala.Code, 262(d)] Title and as
er” rights and remedies of Ala- сompensation workmen’s laws ex-
bama rights all and remedies
clude Ala.Code, 262.
employee. Title Beasley Engineering v. MacDonald
Company, 287 Ala. So.2d in point. Beasley, the insurer was negligent perform- in tort for
held liable (not a voluntary undertaking
ance a con- undertaking) repair.
tractual its that the
based decision the fact insur- engaged sup-
er there was not in a role of respоnsibility required financial
plying employer the Alabama Work- Compensation Act.
men’s foregoing
For reasons court is of opinion thát defendant’s motion for
summary judgment granted. due to be
An order will be appropriate entered. 27th day August,
DONE this 1975. Hancock_
/s/ James H.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
963 Sonnett, Miami, point Cooper, Marc the side channel, Neal R. and Fla., defendants-appellants. A.M. about 4:00 he saw two motor boats coming down the with channel their run- Rust, Atty., Wesley U. G. Robert W. S. C. off. ning lights reported one boat to be Currier, Andrews, Lance U. Robert Asst. S. riding low water. The boats moored Fla., Miami, Attys., plaintiff-appellee. dock, the fish house at and then the men been waiting
who had thеre for several just those joined arriving in unload- appeared what to be boxes or bales.' Judge, Before and COLE- agent Only the across the river had a clear TJOFLAT, Judges. MAN and Circuit operation, this view of was too far see what away to was in the boxes. TJOFLAT, Judge: Circuit At this reports based on the The sole in this whether appeal issue agent surveilling activity, the agent the in suppress the trial court in failing erred charge ordered his men to close in. About marijuana sеized law en- evidence federal, state twenty and local officers forcement without a Our officers warrant. fence surrounding scaled the problem approach to the is to determine toward the and ran dock. of the de- whether, peculiar the under facts froze and apprehended. fendants was The case, probable justify cause existed to the others, appellants three the in this search and seizure.1 Our review of the boаts, and were in one of the when record us that in convinces this instance it officers, they the took off at spotted high did, and we therefore affirm. speеd down the channel. The vessel was open time later in the seized some seas and debris was found in it. marijuana 23,1975, prior Sometime to December the dоck, eighty bags marijuana At the Drug (DEA) Enforcement Agency received nearby were plain view seized. A rental smuggled was to be searched, thirty bags and van was сountry somewhere Flor- along the marijuana were found there. The total tip ida coast. was The the up weight contraband almost 4500 they began DEA as сomings monitor the lbs. goings and of a certain van. At about The facts above were the seizure, eleven o’clock on the of the evidentiary heаring at an trial court on a the van was followed East Florida suppress. motion denied the House, Coast Fish located in the town of first, motion, finding Marathon in the Florida Keys. The van exigent supported circumstances and private premises entered the of this com- seizure; second, search warrantlеss and mercial fish house and min- supported could be as a search later, again. utes left The fish house was search; and, third, seizure of the border dark, аt the contraband incident to lawful arrest. time. As we affirm district court’s first find- agent noting DEA in charge, ing, we need not consider alternative area behind house hоldings. provide good place contra- bringing band, decided to continue surveillance of II the fish house. was soon observed that two men appellants analyze about would have us tip area. One was sent in terms of given to a surveillance exigent existed, eliminating 1. The do not require- contest cirсumstances obtaining a warrant. 964 riding low in water. boats sufficient legally DEA international Texas, provides access .to 84 S.Ct. Aguilar U.S. (6) The boats moored at the dock Spinelli v. waters.
1509, 12 L.Ed.2d (1964), fish house. Those on the boats States, 21 of the 393 U.S. S.Ct. previously loitering those joined claim that They L.Ed.2d *3 unloading cargo, ap- which reliability givеn, concededly lacking tip, be boxed or baled. peared to give the adequately corroborated to was not generally Unit- probable cause. See agents unusual, ac- light clandestine Tuley, (5th Cir. 546 F.2d ed States difficulty concluding we have no that tivity, analy- engage to in such 1977). We decline probаble suspect agents had cause to a van sis, agents however. on appel- conduct criminal to commercial led them a deserted which subsequent Their search and lants.2 the Atlantic with access to establishment was therefore reasonable the contraband charge then decidеd Ocean. judg- the fourth amendment. The af- premises surveillance to continue cpurt of the district is ment is had The critical fact van left. ter the AFFIRMED. any prоp- no on that, intrusion had been occa- privacy interest erty or Judge, concurring. any out van The DEA can stake sioned. fully in I concur the result and in.the to, it mind wheth- any fish house has a would add basis. With another opinion. not. or prompted er showing reasonably and none inferable key question, record, that dеfendants and from during agents their activity noticed any right occupancy had henchmen their premises suspicious surveillance house, of a closеd commercial fish probable to believe enough to furnish cause any expectancy privacy. not assert could previ- conduct was afoot. As criminal that position in a They are not to contend that stated, we the district conclude that ously agents trespassers— the Government prоbable correctly determined that perhaps as to the fish house trespassers following relyWe on the did exist. concern, certainly trespassers but as to (1) closed for house was facts: Without cause at the mo- them. during ques- of time in period attack, agents the Government had building, lights were on inside the Nо premises tion. to be on as the as much and the lighted, the dock area premises on the nor Once defendants. (2) view, Two locked. plainest fenced and 80 boxes of premises more were observed near the dock in the vessel be- men There was no need to sus- next unloaded. 11:00 P.M. until 4:00 A.M. the from a crimе was committed. (3) pect seen in the morning. No boats had been actually see it was. when, They could at about A.M., running lights two boats without 4:00 a vessel to slowly view. Fоr
motored is in running lights without
travel a violation of 33
and of itself U.S.C. 46 id.
(1970) and 526b. all, put After did inno- their catch. the boxes unloaded an tries 2. Counsel Moreover, traps. interpretation the men loi- lobster on the facts resеmble cent court, unper- tering at least five hours could we find his efforts on the district waiting help argues running lights them unload. What been have suasive. vitality argument, simply how- malfunctioned. boats could have undercuts ever, running quite was obvi- if all the the fact that be a coincidence during operation. ously traveling togеther lights were off entire two vessels closed by design. occurred at this 4:00 A.M. rather than Counsel Whatever accident night, obviously fishing argues not normal business is done at since rendezvous unloading activity. simply could have been the boats