*1 America, STATES UNITED Plaintiff-Appellee, MITCHELL,
Elmer Thomas Defendant- Appellant.
No. 72-2437. Court Diego, (argued), Robert L. San Boles Ninth Circuit. Cal., defendant-appellant. Jan. Jeffrey Arbetman, F. Asst. U. S.
Atty. Nelson, (argued), Stephen G. Asst. Atty., Harry Steward, U. D. U. S. Atty., plaintiff-appellee. MERRILL, KOELSCH, PER CURIAM: appeal from conviction of the This is possession intent to dis- of heroin with question presented tribute. there cause whether paper search a sack loсated rear of an automobile. seat passed a border car had point just cheek subjected tо search. No had been found. A half contraband was then roving by im- hour later was migration agents and searched fоund. hours No contraband was Two again by later it was same immigration agents for the and searched strip third time. A of сlear protruding from under the rear paper lifted seat. The seat was bag plas- discovered which the рrotruded. Inspection tic of the contents bag disclosed narcotics. deciding We assume without (and reservations) with some inspection third were for aliens. We assume with search deciding (and out with some reserva tions) inspеction of the area beneath justified. rear seat was likewise that examination concedes cannot the contents of the justified. It instead that contends agents got the time the it contained narcotics. Govеrnment *2 68 duffel a ammuni- rifle and for such belief in detail basis lists the tion, parenthetically a and some arrows. and bow
to we have added which with de- commentary was consistent [This or correction some that earlier statement fendant’s record. of the going hunting.] he was “1) to last car vehicle the The was covering 10) go through port There а bed sheet it was the midnight. was also the back seat. [There The vehicle at closed dog occupying a thе rear seat.] was rented. 11) defendant had brush debris 2) 12:25, the sole At defendant was passenger on hair the and occupant his of the when vehicle dirty on had boots. The floor stopped near the border. was passenger side also had some the green only 3) 12:25, a At there was type of debris. along bag in the trunk duffel 12) piece jack. A clear was spare and with a tire sticking spotless. out under the front seat interior of the car was apparеntly that had not been agents 4) had knew defendant there before.” Brief for United felony prior narcotics record. a States at 10-11. going 5) he was Defendant claimed ‘pass’ camping a and wanted judgment In our not does not bе he would establish cause to that going camp- he stated was [He the contained narcotics.1 ing hunting.] or Reversed. 6) m., At 2:45 a. the vehicle was again in the area with observed Judge (dissent- [Appellant occupants. two ing) : going earlier stated that he was circumstances, I not pick up companion.] a One judgment our substitute individual was latеr highly in the officers who were skilled standing near the left front smugglers along detection of the Mexi bumper. can the Border. The knew officers 7) The vehicle was appellant border area was final which m., past at 3:00 a. miles the six ly stopped discovered, the contraband place he where defendant stated region smuggling was a noted for going camping. place [The was illegal crossings by Mexican border only question one of sev- was Moreover, past experience, aliens. from under eral consideration the knew that last car officers the campsite.] checkpoint prior the eager 8) nervous and Defendant was engaged likely to was one which was be open on the trunk the second activity. true, such This was occasion. might reason of a thаt an alien belief 9) camping equipment vehicle, not- concealed in the No be but only grounded vehiclе, empty
ed in the
the
because
a reasonable belief
Similarly,
reject
agents
(9th
1966),
must
the Government’s
F.2d
or
470
Cir.
argument
parcels
reasonably
have
the search of defendant’s
certain that
paper bag
smuggled
cаr and of the
as
been
across
border
placed
v.
border
search.
for customs
in the
order
vehicle. Unitеd
agents
(9th
Weil,
Cir.
to search for contraband without
pedestrian, meet or and later co-conspirator in area an isolated
his appellant did
close to the border. companion he crossed
not have a when time of the final At the border. *3 companion who was wear he had a
ing dirty fresh on his boots with brush fact,
pants. the rear seat was strange sheet and a look
covered with a
ing piece protruding from of These items had seat. previous
been there at the time
inspections. viewed Whеn government, most favorable to the others shown the record with
facts constitute such “a of sus series
picious circumstances which when tifken
together provide [would] question.
cause” for the search here Korb, 456, Statеs v. (CA9 closely point. We authority
need not discuss the Immigration agents type make this
of search. v. Almeida See Sanchez, (CA9 459, 460, granted 944, 92 S. U.S. (1972). 2050,
Ct. Reginald Johnson, Camp- Johnson, I wоuld affirm. Moesta, Mich., appel- Detroit, bell &
lant. Gust, Long, Butzel, B. Weaver, John Zile, Mich., ap- Detroit,
Klein & Van pelleе. PHILLIPS, Judge, Chief MILLER, Circuit McCREE COM- LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE PANY, foreign corporation, Plain- Judge. PHILLIPS, Chief tiff-Appellant, Liberty Appellant, Mutual Insurance Comрany, extend the asks court to CORPORATION, a Michi-
FRUEHAUF
Ryan Steve-
indemnification doctrine of
doring Co.,
gan corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
v. Pan-Atlantic Steam-
Inc.
72-1122.
No.
232,
124,
ship
76 S.Ct.
Corp., 350
(1956),
non-maritime
to a
of the District agreed Fruehauf defendant a tank trailer clean repair, alter and Company. A Chemical for Monsanto using an elec- employee, while Fruehauf Charles- on the trailer tric torch