488 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1973), 73-2769, United States v. Sullivan

Docket Nº:73-2769 [*]
Citation:488 F.2d 138
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ed SULLIVAN, Jr., and Kim Sullivan, Defendants-Appellants.
Case Date:December 12, 1973
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Page 138

488 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1973)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Ed SULLIVAN, Jr., and Kim Sullivan, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 73-2769 [*]

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 12, 1973

Joseph S. Chagra, Lee A. Chagra, El Paso, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

William Sessions, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Ronald F. Ederer, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Defendants were convicted for knowingly and intentionally conspiring to import marijuana from Mexico into the United States. 21 U.S.C.A. § 963. On appeal, they challenge the legality of a search which produced the incriminating marijuana. Defendants, however, lack standing to object to the evidence as the product of an illegal search.

[T]here is no standing to contest a search and seizure where, as here, the defendants: (a) were not on the premises at the time of the contested search and seizure; (b) alleged no proprietary or possessory interest in the premises; and (c) were not charged with an offense that includes, as an essential element of the offense charged, possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search and seizure.

Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 229, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973).

The search in this case was of a van which the defendants neither owned nor possessed at the time of the search.

Page 139

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP