432 F.2d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1970), 22415, United States v. Harrison
|Citation:||432 F.2d 1328|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America v. Roosevelt HARRISON, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||July 15, 1970|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|
Argued April 1, 1969.
Mr. Mitchell Blankstein (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Mr. James A. Treanor, III, Asst.U.S. Atty. at the time of argument, with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U.S.Atty. at the time the brief was filed, Frank Q. Nebeker and Carl S. Rauth, Asst.U.S. Attys. at the time the brief was filed, were on the brief, for appellee.
Messrs. Thomas A. Flannery, U.S. and John A. Terry, Asst.U.S.Atty., Atty., entered appearances for appellee.
Before BURGER, [a1] McGOWAN and TAMM, Circuit Judges.
McGOWAN, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from a narcotics conviction, by the court sitting without a jury, under 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a). 1 Appellant
was also charged with, and convicted of, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174, but the trial court set aside this conviction before sentencing. Appellant, as a second offender, was subject to a sentence of not less than five nor more than twenty years. 26 U.S.C. § 7237(a). The sentence imposed was seven years. 2 For the reasons hereinafter appearing, we affirm.
In the District Court, appellant's effort was directed against the admission in evidence of the narcotics taken from him at the time of his arrest. At a pre-trial hearing of a motion to suppress, and again at trial, three police officers testified that the arrest had been made in the course of the execution of an arrest and search warrant issued on the basis of a police affidavit. That affidavit recited that, on the day preceding the arrest, the officers had taken an informant, known from prior experience to be reliable, to the vicinity of the apartment where appellant lived, searched him to see that he had no narcotics, given him money to buy narcotics, and observed him enter appellant's apartment, reappearing a short time later with narcotics in his possession which he said he had bought from appellant.
Armed with the warrant founded upon this showing, the officers on the following day knocked on appellant's door, identified themselves, in response to a query from within, as police possessed of a warrant, and entered when the door was not thereafter opened. Once inside, they saw appellant in the act of swallowing an...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP