395 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1968), 21687, Boyle v. United States

Docket Nº:21687.
Citation:395 F.2d 413
Party Name:William Lyle BOYLE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Case Date:May 17, 1968
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 413

395 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1968)

William Lyle BOYLE, Appellant,


UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21687.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 17, 1968

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1968.

Page 414

Minoru Inadomi (argued), of Inadomi, Menke & Keenan, Santa Ana, Cal., for appellant.

Jo Ann Dunne (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., William M. Byrne, Jr., U.S. Atty., Michael D. Nasatir, Asst. U.S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Div., Michael P. Balaban, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and CARR, District Judge.

ELY, Circuit Judge:

In an indictment containing four counts, appellant was charged with having willfully filed false federal income tax returns for the years 1959 and 1960 and with having filed false amended returns for the same years. 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). In a jury trial, he was found guilty of all four offenses with which he was charged. His motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals.

The appellant does not claim that the evidence was insufficient to support conviction. He bases his appeal on two grounds: (1) That certain evidence was illegally seized and for that reason should not have been admitted against him and (2) that testimony of certain oral statements made by him to investigating officers should have been barred because of the failure of the officers to give him required warnings.

Appellant occupied the position of manager of the Midway City (California) Sanitation District. One Edwin L. Barkley

Page 415

had performed services for the District. Barkley conducted his business through Barkley Pipeline Company and Mesa Pipe Line and Supply, Inc., and authorities believed that Barkley, by falsifying billing records and accounts, had overcharged the Sanitation District for the services which Barkley's business concerns had rendered. The investigating authorities, state officers representing the District Attorney of Orange County, California, procured three search warrants. They authorized searches to be made of premises which were owned and controlled by Barkley. The appellant did not occupy such premises and had no interest in them. Under the authority of the warrants, Claimed by appellant to have been defective, there was a seizure of certain canceled checks. Although the record is not entirely clear, at least some of...

To continue reading