United States v. Kelehar
Decision Date | 08 December 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 72-1396.,72-1396. |
Citation | 470 F.2d 176 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Levy Alan KELEHAR, a/k/a James Stone, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Morton A. Orbach, Miami, Fla. (court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., (Mrs.) Marsha Lyons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RIVES, WISDOM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
The defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. § 472.1 The first count charged that he passed or attempted to pass a $20.00 Federal Reserve Note, knowing the same to be counterfeit. The second count charged that he knowingly kept in his possession and concealed two counterfeit $50.00 Federal Reserve Notes. Upon arraignment the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. He then moved to suppress evidence seized upon a search of his automobile and further to suppress statements taken by police officers and by a Secret Service Agent. After a hearing, the court denied his motion to suppress upon the ground that "there is ample evidence to support that this was an inventory which was taken routinely before the car was to be towed away."
The defendant then moved to withdraw his plea of not guilty and to enter a plea of nolo contendere to both counts of the indictment. The court, prior to accepting the plea of nolo contendere, stated to the defendant that such a plea "gives your lawyer the right to appeal my ruling on the motion to suppress * * *."
This appeal from the ensuing judgment of conviction raises the issue of whether the search of the defendant's automobile was legal and, hence, whether the statements taken by the police and the Secret Service Agent were the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. We decide that issue against the defendant and affirm the judgment of conviction.
On July 2, 1971, two plain clothes police officers of the City of Hollywood, Florida, received a call from headquarters to go to the Corral Bar-B-Que. There one of the officers, Mr. McMahon, was contacted by the operator of the establishment and a waitress who pointed out the defendant as the person who attempted to pass "what appeared to be a bogus $20.00 bill." Officer McMahon showed the defendant that he was a police officer and asked him to step outside where another officer was standing. Officer McMahon then advised the defendant of his constitutional rights and began questioning him about the $20.00 bill. McMahon told the defendant that "I was going to check about him," whereupon the defendant said, "You'll find I have some outstanding warrants," that they were "misdemeanor warrants, traffic warrants with Dade County." At McMahon's request, the defendant agreed to go to the police station for further investigation about the warrants.
The investigation revealed three warrants from Dade County and one from Sebring, Florida, all misdemeanor traffic warrants. The defendant was then advised that Continuing, McMahon testified:
Sergeant Hessler, in turn, testified:
In response to questioning by defendant's counsel, Sergeant Hessler further testified:
Sergeant Hessler instructed Police Officer Gilbert Frazer to go to Corral Bar-B-Que and inventory the vehicle prior to having it towed in. Officer Frazer found the doors of the car unlocked. On questioning by defendant's counsel, he testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Atkinson
...of the practice tends to discourage the fraudulent assertion of claims for lost or stolen property. See, e.g., United States v. Kelehar, 470 F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir.1972). Third, it is asserted that in an age of increasing violence, some danger to police and others arises from the impoundmen......
-
State v. Craft, s. 14138
...... The United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3097, 49 ...Kelehar, 470 F.2d 176, 178 (CA5 1972); and the protection of the police from potential danger, Cooper v. ......
-
South Dakota v. Opperman
...458 F.2d 960, 961 (CA9 1972); the protection the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, United States v. Kelehar, 470 F.2d 176, 178 (CA5 1972); and the protection of the police from potential danger, Cooper v. California, supra, 386 U.S., at 61-62, 87 S.Ct., at 790.......
-
Gill v. State
...458 F.2d 960, 961 (CA9 1972); the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, United States v. Kelehar, 470 F.2d 176, 178 (CA5 1972); and the protection of the police from potential danger, Cooper v. California, supra (386 U.S.) at 61-62, 87 S.Ct. 788 (......