Zacarias v. United States

Decision Date05 January 1959
Docket NumberNo. 17440.,17440.
Citation261 F.2d 416
PartiesAurelio ZACARIAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Joseph A. Calamia, Joseph J. Rey, El Paso, Tex., for appellant.

James E. Hammond, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., Russell B. Wine, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge.

This appeal from an order of the trial court denying appellant's motion to suppress evidence was prosecuted before indictment or trial of appellant. It is attacked by a motion to dismiss, filed by the United States, on the ground that the order of the trial court was interlocutory and thus not appealable.

The record before us discloses that Zacarias was searched without a warrant and had certian narcotics taken from his possession, was then arrested, taken before the United States Commissioner, where a complaint was filed against him as provided in Rule 5, F.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A.1 Zacarias was released on bond, employed counsel and appeared at his commitment hearing. He was bound over to the grand jury. Thereafter, at this stage of the proceedings, he filed his motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search was made without a search warrant, without an arrest warrant and without probable cause for believing that a narcotics violation was being committed or had been committed by Zacarias within the meaning of 26 U.S. C.A. § 7607.2 The trial court heard evidence on the motion to suppress, and entered an order denying it. Thereupon appellant appealed here.

The appealability of this order depends upon whether it is a "final" order of the trial court, as distinguished from an interlocutory order, since the existence of a final order is necessary in order for this court's jurisdiction to attach. 28 U.S. C.A. § 1291. The answer to this question is found by determining whether this motion to suppress the evidence is an independent civil proceeding, finally terminated with the order denying the relief or is ancillary to a pending criminal proceeding.

No Supreme Court case has been cited to or been found by us that categorically answers this question. A rather full discussion of the reviewability of such orders is contained in Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442. However, in that case an indictment had already been found, which, of course, is not the case here. In Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950, the Court held that an order denying the motion, before indictment, to enjoin the use of certain documents that had been impounded in previous litigation, was appealable.

In United States v. Williams, 4 Cir., 227 F.2d 149, the court held that an order entered after complaint and after the accused had been bound over to the District Court on a waiver of a commitment hearing, was interlocutory and not appealable. Such was the posture of affairs here, except that here the commitment hearing was held, and, as provided in the rule, Zacarias was bound over to the District Court.

We note that a different view is expressed in a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Freeman v. United States, 160 F.2d 69. However, we think it quite plain that after a complaint has been issued by a United States commissioner, the accused has been afforded a commitment hearing at which he is permitted to cross examine the prosecuting witnesses and to testify, if he so desires, in his own behalf, and is then, in the language of the statute "held to answer in the district court," a motion thereafter made under Rule 41 (e) is incidental to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • U.S. v. Denson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 5, 1979
    ...Yeloushan v. United States, 313 F.2d 303 (5th Cir. 1963); United States v. Koening, 290 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1961); Zacarais v. United States, 261 F.2d 416 (5th Cir. 1959); United States v. Williamson, 255 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. There being no statutory authority permitting the Government to appe......
  • Austin v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • November 21, 1961
    ...v. United States, 354 U.S. 394, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442, 1443. 6 United States v. Williams, 4 Cir., 227 F.2d 149; Zacarias v. United States, 5 Cir., 261 F.2d 416, cert. denied 359 U.S. 935, 79 S.Ct. 650, 3 L.Ed.2d 637; United States v. Marquette, 9 Cir., 270 F. 7 Cobbledick v. United ......
  • United States v. Koenig
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 12, 1961
    ...from the district in which the defendant was indicted and will be tried. We hold that the order is not appealable. Zacarias v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 416, certiorari denied 359 U.S. 935, 79 S.Ct. 650, 3 L.Ed.2d 637, controls our decision. Government appeals in criminal cases ......
  • Di Bella v. United States United States v. Koenig
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1962
    ...71-72, 68 S.Ct. 972, 978, 92 L.Ed. 1212. 6 Fourth Circuit: United States v. Williams, 227 F.2d 149 (1955). Fifth Circuit: Zacarias v. United States, 261 F.2d 416 (1958); Saba v. United States, 282 F.2d 255 (1960). In the District of Columbia Circuit, the decisions appear to have inverted th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT