United States v. James W. Lewis

steps justify help The mended that other be taken believed, termination.7 by productive show- Rush “return to normal and this Secretary may meet burden Stevens, specific psychologist, life.” Dr. con- error was clear and ing that there curred, finding that by producing the combination of or prior determination physical problems psychological medical Rush’s the claimant’s new evidence working any him prevent the claimant would from improved, has condition than a sheltered medical or vocational environment other one. from benefitted has However, in a possibility that the claim- of “work shel- technology, or therapy or disabling origi- workshop tered is not substantial evidence so is not ant’s condition supporting disability of denial benefits.” nally supposed. Heckler, Van Horn F.2d meet this bur- Secretary does not If the (8th Cir.1983) (citing Califano, Bailey the claimant will be production, den of (8th Cir.1980)). The ob- If, on the disabled. to be still deemed servation that Rush had not AU meet her hand, Secretary does other weight lost and was not malnourished can- disability will burden, presumption compensate not for the uncontradicted evi- case, proceeding will and the drop from the dence that Rush was not unable to any manner as other the same continue work, perform past his relevant but was determination, the burden of disability completely Accordingly, disabled. we re- the claimant. persuasion on Rush’s verse and direct that benefits be reinstated.8 III. Secretary did not

It clear that is production this case. her meet burden Holder, Martin, reports of Drs. essentially reiterated evidence

Stevens physicians in the deter

given

mination, to be when Rush determined Thus, reverse, Rush, because America, Appellee, we

disabled. UNITED STATES presumption continuing by virtue of disability, must still deemed disabled. LEWIS, Appellant. James W. recognize enunciating that we are We No. 83-1947. presumption rule the first time our of Appeals, Court consider, this so we shall without also Eighth Circuit. presumption, whether regard to Secretary’s supported by determination is Submitted Jan. 1984. it substantial evidence. We hold that is June 1984. Decided firmly Dr. Martin stated that Rush’s not. prevented him symptoms were severe and working. disagree Dr. Holder did not assessment, merely but recom-

with this Smith, disability may recognize supra, We F.2d F.2d at benefits not be 7. said, guaranteed “A claimant is not terminated without new evidence. right continuing disability benefits without disabling producing that the condition rejected Secretary’s contention alone, language Taken could continues.” suggestion of Drs. Martin and Stevens approval of the Cir- be read to indicate Third might psychotherapy benefit from that Rush placing position in bur- cuit’s initial Kuzmin rehabilitation services establish vocational produce on claimant evidence that den However, longer that Rush is no disabled. changed. We has not do her condition improve young Rush is a man. If he can him there need for this not believe either that is so, self, Secretary is should do entire step compelled we are additional or that ly the case from time to time free to reexamine prescribe did not address the Smith it. Smith unreasonably satisfy is himself that Rush not question presumptions bur- and concomitant rejecting treatment or vocational rehabilitation. controlling production, on dens of so 404.1530, See C.F.R. §§ addition, says, this issue. Smith that some ulently. discovered being purchased merchandise card was delivered to a mailbox at Road, 8342 Swartz Kansas. Detective William Moore of the Kansas C.

City, Department Missouri Police drove there and found a mounted mailbox concrete, two-gallon lying can on filled with ditch, ground in a state the and disrepair. The in a rural area mailbox was among a row set of similar mailboxes. It Koontz, Lathrop, Maughmer, T. John the name had “David Woods” written on City, Norquist, & Kansas Clagett Righter, No one in neighborhood its side. the knew Mo., appellant. David Woods of a or an 8342 Swartz Road Ulrich, Atty., Robert E. G. Robert residence, and police further City, Mo., Larsen, Atty., Kansas Asst. U.S. person no such revealed or residence. appellee. peered Moore the box Detective then into attempt to mail determine when McMILLIAN, Judge, to Circuit Before up. being picked he On October GIBSON, Judge, R. Senior Circuit FLOYD found a opened and Jackson GIBSON, Judge. R. Circuit and JOHN County property assessment bill addressed GIBSON, Judge. R. Circuit JOHN David E. took the tax bill to Woods. He to it, sergeant, opened inspected who his on six Lewis was convicted W. James contents, envelope, and resealed the had devising and im- fraud for' of mail counts replace Detective Moore the mailbox. credit card plementing a fraudulent Moore Detective used the identification appeal argues that the scheme. On listed on to learn from number the tax bill have held that court1 should district County Office that the Jackson Recorder’s opening bearing of a mailbox warrantless question had been sold property to all subse- “David Woods” tainted the name and Helen David E. Woods Record S. warrants, render- quently search obtained them, When Moore interviewed Rowland. produced by war- those all they denied that had sold the the Rowlands also contends rants inadmissible. He anyone. questioned to When as property search warrant obtained was not first would have information about the to who upon cause because af- based mentioned the property, Rowlands insufficient information fidavit contained Lewis, prepar- W. who had name of James gauge credibility or relia- upon which to years. tax returns for several ed their Furthermore, bility of the informant. he court erred in the David Woods contends that district Police surveillance on denying to commenced on November 9. On a motion dismiss indictment mailbox taking publicity Lewis was seen mail improper prejudicial due to and November physically impartial as well that denied him a fair trial an it in up placing jury. Finally, picking that he was de- police Lewis to his resi- legal adequate car. tracked nied research facilities Troost, at 5723 Missou- preparation enable him to aid in the and dence ri, repairing they him presentation of his affirm where observed defense. We mailbox. convictions. inspector later Ryan reported days postal A few asked E. to the

John Williams, Joyce former wife John being used fraud- Mrs. his VISA card was Roberts, 1. The Honorable T. souri. Ross Judge for District of Mis- District the Western Thus, by Ryan Lewis pay a debt owed tion. the court

Ryan, to concluded that the attempt to determine if there were subsequent warrants did not stem from she in the Lewis office when typewriters any illegality. The court further ruled that her on $22.00 so. Because she did reliability of Mrs. Williams as an infor- gave her an additional inspector person, the shown, mant had sufficiently finding been While at the Lewis pay the debt. $50.00 simply ordinary she was citizen and typewriters. saw two office Mrs. Williams a victim of the fraudulent scheme. Her active cooperation with law enforcement was obtained A federal search warrant officials, even though fifty dollars was De- typewriters and on respect reimbursed, require not did detectives, her reliabil- postal inspectors, cember ity to be independently. Moreover, tested ad- police officers went to the 5723 Troost her information was premises, per- They dress. secured the corroborated other sweep photo- facts the affidavit. formed an initial took graphs. relating Numerous items to the card fraud were I. plain view. A second search warrant was government The argues that Lewis la- and another search conducted obtained standing has no to raise the fourth amend day. ter that Four additional search war- arising ment issues from the search of the executed. rants were then obtained and recognize David Woods mailbox. We case At the time the indictments this possession of the mailbox and of its returned, subject Lewis was the of a were upon mail does not confer Lewis “automat nationwide manhunt not in connection standing” ic to raise a fourth amendment resulting cyanide- the deaths from Salvucci, challenge. v. United States 448 Strength Tylenol capsules laced Extra but 83, 92-93, 2547, 2553-2554, U.S. 100 S.Ct. respect to an letter sent also with extortion (1980). Rather, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 fourth Johnson, & its manufacturers. Johnson nature, rights personal amendment are 30, 1982, September May and Between Illinois, 128, 140, Rakas v. 439 U.S. 99 trial, 1983, the date of Lewis’s numerous 421, 428, (1978), S.Ct. 58 L.Ed.2d 387 and approx- and radio and television broadcasts question the critical governmen is whether imately City newspaper stories any legitimate expecta tal officials violated and articles mentioned or discussed Lewis privacy Rawlings tion of held Lewis. v. Tylenol investigation. 98, 106, Kentucky, 448 U.S. suppress Lewis moved evidence 2562, (1980); Salvucci, L.Ed.2d 633 opening the warrantless of the 92, 100 2553; S.Ct. United States mailbox, additionally claiming David Woods (8th Weatherd, v. 699 F.2d Cir. warrants, subsequent that all search 1983); Reed, 733 F.2d see trial, therefore all evidence at the were (8th Cir.1984). 492 at 500-501 allegedly illegal fruit this search. squarely face The district court did hearing district court conducted a district attor- question. this Because the granted suppress the motion to with re- suppression hearing ney at the stated spect testimony concerning to all introduce government did not intend to ad- search of tax bill or letter the mailbox search evidence of E. dressed to David Woods which was trial, the district court sim- at the contents opened, testimony seized and and all relat- granted aspect of the motion to ply determined, ing The court how- thereto. need not suppress. We believe we

ever, suppressed information was standing the va- issue because best, address and that the minor and cumulative challenged warrants lidity of the search properly have first search warrant could grounds.2 may on other We such informa- be decided been issued absence of and, accordingly, difficulty concluding its contents that Lew- 2. We have no standing to raise the legitimate expectation that he would have no is lacked contends, the fruits of all five further deciding that Lewis without simply assume warrants were tainted and inadmis- amend- search raise the fourth standing to has no show- sible. He that there was regarding questions ment independent of sources of information search. illegality. II. question that evi beyond It court’s de reviewing the district pursuant illegal dence obtained of a mo made in the context terminations poisonous search is the “fruit of the tree” clearly apply the erro suppress, we tion to against and cannot be used an individual. Ross, States neous standard. United Illinois, 590, 599, Brown v. 422 U.S. (8th Cir.1983); 389, 392 713 F.2d 2254, 2259, (1975); 45 L.Ed.2d Childress, States, Wong v. United Sun 371 U.S. Cir.1982). we (8th Under standard 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d it lacks the the decision unless must affirm decide, necessary have not found it evidence, it evolves support of substantial assuming opening of the David but applicable an erroneous view from the tax within Woods mailbox and of bill law, upon considering the entire record search, illegal think the constituted an we definite and firm convic are left with a record us nevertheless establishes before Ross, a mistake has been made. tion that stemming all six the evidence 713 F.2d at 392. by indepen procured warrants had been “sufficiently distinguishable dent means

A. Brown, purged primary the taint.” be of 2259; Wong 599, erred in 422 U.S. at 95 S.Ct. at Lewis the court Sun, sup- at 83 S.Ct. at 417. denying portion of the motion to 371 U.S. independent source will sought to exclude all materials Evidence from an press which Crews, excluded, United States v. search war- seized as a result of six 1244, 1252, 463, 475, 100 63 He claims that the information ob- 445 U.S. S.Ct. rants. (1980); Lumber Silverthorne opening was L.Ed.2d 537 tained in the of mailbox States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, to the issuance of the first war- Co. v. United 40 essential 182, 183, (1920); United L.Ed. 319 rant that the other five warrants were 64 and Stover, (8th 1013 dependent upon Accordingly, the first. is, nature, flowing by very critically its different from issue from the justified, expectation, search. It was unlocked and situated however well the mere public. in a rural area accessible to the It bore facts will not come to the atten- that certain Woods,” investigation yet the name “David re- authorities. tion of the by vealed no one that name and no residence expectation privacy of to be We believe Lewis’ address, designated Swartz Road. The 8342 burglar plying his or her akin to that of the police took note of the mailbox because season, during in a summer cabin the off trade fraudulently purchased with John merchandise Rakas; example and an drawn in Jacobsen Ryan’s every card was there. He had sent burglar may thoroughly justi- a while the have expectation governmental officials privacy, subjective expectation of it is not fied regularly open box deliver Further- mail. recognizes legitimate. one that the law as more, opening of the tax bill addressed presence, United His in the words of Jones [v. "David E. Woods" and not to Lewis cannot be 257, 267, 725, 734, States, 4 362 U.S. 80 S.Ct. infringed privacy to have his said reasonable (1960) ], "wrongful,” expec his L.Ed.2d 697 is expectations. privacy society not one that is tation of is Supreme has this The United States Court recognize prepared to as "reasonable.” Katz expounded upon concept Term further U.S., S.Ct., States, at 361 [88 expectation pri a what constitutes reasonable J., (Harlan, concurring). 516] States, vacy enunciated in v. United as Katz Jacobsen, 104 S.Ct. at 1661 - U.S. at - n. (1967). L.Ed.2d U.S. bearing a false name with a n. 22. A mailbox — - at -, Jacobsen, U.S. United States v. only to receive fraudu false address and used (1984), 80 L.Ed.2d 85 104 S.Ct. 1652 mailings lently merit an ex obtained does not Stevens, Court, per Justice stated: privacy society prepared pectation is concept of an interest recognize as reasonable. society recognize prepared as reasonable surveillance, placed Cir.1977), government if shows was under and Lewis evidence that it is taking preponderance placing was seen it in Matlock, untainted, vehicle, driving Troost, and to 5723 988, 996, 164, 177, L.Ed.2d repairing Joyce where he was seen it. States, (1974); Alderman v. United Williams told the affiant that she entered 961, 972, 22 165, 183, 89 S.Ct. 394 U.S. premises at 5723 Troost and observed typewriters. two made. showing believe such We conclude that this information in the of those made no mention Had the affidavit amply affidavit probable established cause directly or or facts individuals discovered for issuance of the first search warrant. search, the indirectly through the mailbox completely This information was indepen- suffi- remaining facts would still been dent of evidence or leads discovered finding cause support cient to taking opening the letter from the search warrant. The issuing the first discovery mailbox. While the of the Row- prepare engaged W. Lewis to Ryans James Lewis, implicated lands further this tie was years and tax returns for seven to ten their not, argues, significant such a concerning their furnished him information in the case that it tainted all break residence, number, telephone Social Securi- pursue evidence. The did not numbers, savings ty checking and ac- Lewis; instead, Rowlands’ connection to counts, Two and credit card accounts. step the next the VISA credit card checks written on placing of surveillance on the mailbox it- going the mail- resulted in mail account Certainly fully self. this surveillance was Kansas; Swartz, at 8342 box justified by reports Ryan from John authorize the Ryans did not write or Williams, Joyce discovery checks. The affidavit issuance of these suspicious Road mailbox. That Swartz Joyce Williams’ Master further stated successful, proved in itself surveillance Charge Penney credit cards been identifying Lewis both at the mailbox and authorization, and the used without her transporting the box to his address at mailed to 8342 resultant merchandise indepen- Had there 5732 Troost. been Swartz. upon Lewis before such surveil- dent focus typewritten The affidavit also stated that might have a different case. The lance we name applications credit card of John discovery of Lewis at the how- Ryan eight E. were sent to businesses ever, indepen- sufficient to show the was Ryan City the Kansas area. told subsequent nature of the evidence and dent apply these cards but did not We conclude that its lack of taint. ap- confirmed that the information on properly district court denied Lewis’s mo- accurate, plications except for the ad- suppress. tion to cards, Hazel, Kan- dress listed on the line sas Missouri. Trash at curb recovered and found to 5723 Troost was B. repair contain a notice to argues that the affida Lewis naming 8342 Swartz and various items support vit filed in of the first warrant Ryan, Ryan,

John E. J.E. D.E. Wood & to determine lacked information sufficient Associates, Associates, and D.L. &Wood credibility reliability of the infor A all with the address of 8342 Swartz. Williams, mant, concerning state Mrs. address list- mail cover of 8342 Swartz her. ments in the affidavit attributed to approximately seventy-eight pieces of ed information an informant furnishes When to the 45-day period, a each sent mail over necessary the deter is critical and Wood, Woods, D.E. D.E. name of David cause, it must probable be sub Associates, mination of Ryan, E. John John Woods & analysis. jected careful Illinois Ryan, combinations of the names. or other Gates, Road The David mailbox on Swartz Woods pro- dire jury. He that no voir tial (1983); Spinelli v. United 584, 588, reasonably ensured that 410, 415, cedure would

States, 393 U.S. Gates, jurors by prospective the Su prejudices In harbored 21 L.Ed.2d 637 Aguilar-Spi discovered. abandoned would be preme Court and declared test “two-pronged” nelli respect allegations of With to Lewis’s infor of whether the determination bias, grand jury have held that to chal we cause involves probable tip supports mant’s lenge successfully, a defend an indictment “totality of the cir a consideration pretrial publicity ant must show such 2329; see Gates, 103 cumstances.” prejudice caused actual and that the indict F.2d 625 at Rodgers, 732 States United preju returned was the result of that ment Cir.1984). the affidavit stat (8th Here Civella, 648 F.2d dice. United States v. private citizen was a Mrs. Williams ed that Cir.1981); (8th McWilliams v. fraud, who credit card a victim of States, (8th F.2d Cir. inspector in postal to assist the volunteered 1968). cannot conclude that Lewis’s repairman telephone Like the this case. result, prejudice. was the indictment in United information who volunteered set forth in the indictment had The facts Ross, had no motive to supra, she basis, as indicated in our dis factual solid knowledge falsify and her basis the fourth amendment issues. cussion of fifty clearly in the affidavit. revealed Furthermore, proof no Lewis offered inspector postal given to her dollars was the result of actual the indictment scarcely transforms pay the Lewis debt prejudice. informant, which professional her into examination, dire credibility conducting concerns. the voir raise other might Moreover, jury panel to the nature of her information— the district court read public- typewriters strongly Lewis’s worded instruction the existence of —was totality Strength Tylenol Weighing ity concerning the Extra easily corroborated. circumstances, investigation conclude that indictment for and Lewis’s facts about charges forth sufficient in the Northern District affidavit set other pro- nothing the information she do with the case Mrs. Williams and Illinois had attorneys cause could be vided from which them. Lewis and his before approach dire agreed found. the best voir Tylenol publicity con- would be to raise the III. jurors rather prospective cerns before the say nothing and entail attendant pub massive than to argues that the attorneys prepared and sub- risks. Lewis’s Tylenol licity instruction, specifically with- given him to a mitted the but impossible made in the motion to waiving rights specifically argues that the out Lewis’s fair trial. He publicity. After jury pretrial based on brought by grand dismiss indictment was cause, excusing venirepersons for publicity, several presumptively prejudiced by the jurors prospective prejudicial questioned 45 publicity was so the court and that the the presence of individually outside the inflammatory presumptive he was that pretrial publicity.3 panel as to the effect of ly actually impar- to an unable obtain panel report cause the Essentially panel 4. Would such news each mem- 3. the court asked opinion guilt as to the or to have an member ber: of the defendant? innocence which nature of the news to 1. What was the panel member be able to set Would the i.e., exposed, panel tele- the member had been report base the verdict news aside such vision, newspaper? radio or evidence in this case? on the cover, i.e., report the 2. What did the news satisfied, panel if the member be 6. Would case, killings, City Tylenol or the in this he or she were the defendant extortion case? judged by guilt her or innocence have panel recall of the 3. What did the member mind as the frame of someone in the same report? news member? 923 suggest addi- responses The invited counsel to court sufficient to assure the court any during the questions they at time could fairly tional serve and impartially.' dire examination. On jury process, individual voir At the close of the selection occasion, attorney re- least one Lewis's Lewis moved indictment dismiss the be- thought individual sponded that pretrial cause of the publicity. The district designed get fair and questions were responded court that “the answers we have the truth. jurors me, received convince and I demonstrates, is, believe the record that it instruction, receiving general After fact, possible impar- to obtain a fair and indicated prospective jurors 67 of the 74 jury tial for this trial.” district court who they eight heard of Lewis. had Of has broad discretion in this area and we not, only juror. had one served After as a accord it deference. Bangert, 645 F.2d at dire, conducting the individual voir has 1306. Lewis filed with this court a jur- prospective twelve more court excused articles, collection of newspaper and our ors, overruling only two Lewis’s chal- perusal indicates that at least one or two lenges challenges Peremptory for cause. were letters to editor authored Lew- jury, al- including were made and the two this, himself. is Other than there is no ternates, was seated. evidence offered to demonstrate that the respect procedures, With voir dire publicity great was too for the court to held that where there has been have No Tylenol investiga- overcome. doubt the pervasive pretrial publicity the district emotionally tion was charged, but great exercise to ensure court should care newspaper indicated, articles it was evident defendant; results prejudice no to the publicity about the and extensive dire examina intensive voir Lewis had narrowed to the extortion issues requirement. satisfy tion will rather than to accusations that he had been Bliss, 735 F.2d 294 at 299-301 States v. responsible for the contamination (8th Cir.1984); Bangert, United States v. drug. (8th Cir.1981). 1306 F.2d questioning carefully have of each We have studied the voir dire also held juror individually jurors. presence outside the examination individual instruction, panel light strong preliminary should be determine conducted to jurors given jurors what the and what effect heard the answers on their ability would have to render individual examination and the court’s find- Bliss, impartial ings impartial jury verdict. United that a fair and could 300; Poludniak, selected, United States v. to hold the district court error (8th Cir.), denied, jurors F.2d require 455 would us to find that the cert. disregarded strong instruction and vio- (1982); Jackson, F.2d lated the oath render a verdict accord- (8th Cir.), denied, cert. the -evidencein the case. Noth- 430 U.S. ance with so, they did suggests 52 L.Ed.2d in the record finding. and we cannot make such It significant is here that Lewis did not difficulty move for cause to strike of the twelve This case but underscores publicity presented veniremen that were selected to hear the when substantial sig- It is case. The district court two of the accused individual. denied surrounds here, however, challenges cause, publicity Lewis’s and our ex- nificant part of Lewis the most dealt amination of the record reveals no abuse totally doing; -charges in so those two unrelated to discretion while with issues case, panel which on a rather initially members each seemed uncer- in this were based tain, fully investigation. questioning developed elicited further individual narrow but doubt, panel beyond panel If the member believed after hear- reasonable guilty simply govern- be inclined to vote be- the evidence in case that the member public pressure? prove guilty publicity ment had failed to the defendant cause separately only explain a most diffi- sis and write court confronted

The district pervasive pub- why disagree “standing” analy- I with the in view of cult situation the situation sis set forth in note 2. carefully handled licity but jury could be that a fair and assured itself I appellant legiti- would hold that had a no error in the manner find selected. We expectation mate in privacy of the mailbox court conducted in the district which my opinion and its contents. In the fact jury selection. unlocked, the mailbox in was condition, dilapidated somewhat in located IV. public, a rural area accessible to the bore a law finally contends Lewis address, fictitious name and regularly County was in library at the Jackson Jail opened by postal employees mail, to deliver research needs and adequate to meet his by appellant and was used in furtherance seriously it was restrict that his access to scheme, his fraudulent credit card even that he was not ed. Lewis also claims together, considered do when not diminish writing materi provided typewriter, with a legitimate appellant’s expectation priva- place als or a to work. The dis suitable cy in the mailbox. pre-trial hearing on trict court conducted analysis This is not inconsistent with the government suggested that this issue. The burglar in the summer hypothetical cabin at the Peni library facilities Leavenworth by cited Justice Stevens in Springfield Medical tentiary and the Center — Jacobsen, -, 1652, U.S. 104 S.Ct. substantially complete, were more but the (1984), 1661 n. 80 L.Ed.2d citing rejected defense the alternative of transfer Illinois, n. Rakas 143-44 ring to these facilities. Nineteen of 430-31 n. specific sought items Lewis were for burglar Like who breaks The district use other cases. court or season, during into a summer cabin the off photocopy dered defense counsel to cases appellant legitimate would not have a ex- pending use in the criminal Lewis’s pectation privacy if by govern the costs be borne had stolen it or had broken into it. How- ment. ever, undisputed it was that the mailbox provided represen Here Lewis was belonged appellant. my appel- In view by experienced tation competent two understanding lant’s that access to his lawyers, one with criminal extensive trial (or limited mailbox would be least that experience capable young other a lawfully open officers could not it or lawyer recently completed who a clerkship inspect its contents without a search war- Judge. with a United States District A rant) clearly recognized permit- one defendant in a criminal case does not have society. understanding by ted This is not right a constitutional represent both to appellant used the by affected the fact that represented himself and to be counsel. his fraudulent furtherance of Olson, United States v. credit card scheme. As noted Justice (8th Cir.1978). The district court did dissenting opinion Brennan in his ruling not err in on this issue. Jacobsen, (cita- at 1670 States v. conclusion, carefully we have re- omitted): tions arguments viewed the raised Lewis and In determining whether a reasonable ex- conclude that no error has been demon- violated, pectation has been respects urged. strated in always we have looked to the context in affirm his conviction on all counts. concealed, which an item is not to the identity of the concealed item. Thus in McMILLIAN, Judge, concurring. Circuit physical involving cases searches for items, I appellant’s analysis concur the affirmance of has framed its Court agree Judge expectation priva- mail I fraud convictions. first in terms of the normally R. analy- cy John Gibson’s fourth amendment attends the location of of the ultimately terms the item and expectation____

legitimacy [T]he protection provides Amendment

“Fourth that con- every container

to the owner of plain view.” The

ceals its contents contains contraband that a container

fact of mail

[or, present in the usually it does

fraud], indeed which analy- cases, altered our has never

such

sis. legiti- appellant

I hold in the expectation

mate the dis- contents and would affirm

and its granting appellant’s mo- court’s order

trict testimony all about the suppress

tion to opening of mailbox and the

search of the However, agree I tax bill. information

there was sufficient affidavit, independent of warrant

search sup-

the unlawful search for the finding of cause

port the first Ac- search warrant. issuance Neb., Buchan, Omaha, appel- Michael for I in the affirmance cordingly, concur lant. appellant’s convictions. Robert A. Cannon William L. Tanne-

hill, Lincoln, Neb., appellee. for HEANEY, Judge, Before Circuit FLOYD GIBSON, Judge, AR- R. Senior Circuit NOLD, Judge. Circuit PER CURIAM. JIPP, Stephen Appellant, A. employee of the Bur- Stephen Jipp, A. (Com- lington Company Railroad Northern NORTHERN RAILROAD BURLINGTON against pany), an action commenced COMPANY, Corporation, Appellee. Company injuries allegedly sustained He employment. contend- the course of No. 84-1050. Company negligent in that ed Appeals, United States Court leak from a permitted hydraulic oil to Eighth Circuit. repair. failed to which it had trackmobile onto a railroad tie. allegedly The oil leaked May Submitted 1984. slipped on the oiled tie and Jipp claimed July Decided Company The denied injured his back. Jipp’s The issue was submitted to a claim. returned a verdict jury. jury Company. timely motion for new trial

Jipp filed a jury alleging the verdict of contrary weight of the evidence. the motion and court denied The district appeals. affirm. Jipp

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. James W. Lewis

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 29, 1984

Citation: 738 F.2d 916

Docket Number: 83-1947

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.