U.S. v. Weber
Decision Date | 28 December 1981 |
Docket Number | Nos. 80-1533,s. 80-1533 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roland Wesley WEBER et al., Defendants, Appellants. to 80-1540. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Philip A. DeMassa, San Diego, Cal., with whom Patricia S. O'Mara, San Diego, Cal., was on brief, for defendants, appellants.
Margaret D. McGaughey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Maine, with whom Thomas E. Delahanty, II, U. S. Atty., and James W. Brannigan, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Maine, were on brief, for appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, ALDRICH and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.
Defendants Weber, Strimpel, Samsel, Mark Tice, Lewis, McDougal, Michael Tice, and Jackson were indicted, inter alia, for conspiracy to import, and to possess with intent to distribute, hashish in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 963. After commencement of a jury trial, defendants and government counsel entered into an agreement, approved by the court, to the following effect. Defendants would waive trial by jury and would submit to trial by the court upon certain agreed facts and the testimony and exhibits which defendants had unsuccessfully moved to suppress before trial, and would stipulate that the evidence was sufficient to charge every defendant, but reserving the right of appeal from the court's refusal to suppress. In return, the government agreed to dismiss the substantive counts, and to recommend certain sentences on the conspiracy count. Thereafter defendants were found guilty, and they appeal. 1 No other errors are asserted. Because in two respects the motions to suppress should have been granted, we reverse, in part, as to four defendants, but otherwise affirm.
In connection with its action on the motions the court issued an extensive memorandum opinion, reciting the facts found as a result of an evidentiary hearing, together with its legal conclusions. Since this memorandum was not published, we will (a) summarize somewhat, but quote extensively therefrom; 2 (b) note certain "facts" asserted by defendants, and their incorrectness; (c) summarize and supplement the district court's rulings, and (d) deal with the two items, a walkie-talkie and a chart, that, as to some defendants, should have been suppressed.
The operative events occurred on and near Little Machias Bay, Maine, on December 12 and 13, 1978. 3 The bay, as shown on the Loran-lined edition to U.S. C. & G.S. chart No. 1201 in evidence 4 is in reality a cove, 5/8 mile wide. It faces south, viz., the ocean, is open and exposed, and is without wharves or other facilities. Lying centrally off the bay, in deep water, are two small islets, known as Black Ledges. Two and a half miles to the east is the town of Cutler, with an excellent anchorage, and twenty miles to the east is the Canadian border. Two miles to the west, but cut off from it by islands and a point of land, is Machias Bay and a Naval pier and twenty miles to the west is the U.S. Coast Guard station at Jonesport.
The easterly side of Little Machias Bay terminates at Dennison Point. The Point is sparsely housed, partly cleared and partly wooded. At the end of the road, and fronting on Bear Cove, a small inlet from the bay, are a large house and outbuildings known as Hill Cottage. Coastal Warden MacKeen resided 200 yards inland from the Cottage. Other persons resided further back.
The cast of characters begins, however, with Special Agent Cunniff, of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and Trooper Watkins, of the Maine Division of Special Investigations who worked in concert with him. During the late summer and fall these officers became interested in a Dodge Power Wagon 4 wheel drive pickup truck with a covered camper cap, and a Chevrolet K-5 Blazer, both Maine registered, but with undiscoverable owners. The handwriting on both sets of purchase documents appeared similar, and both vehicles were seen at times on the Hill Cottage property. The Cottage had been purchased the year before by one Melrose, whose only mailing address was a Boston answering service, and who had never been seen. The property was currently occupied by a Lou and Linda Walker, the former proving ultimately to be defendant Weber. Weber told neighbors that he was a Nebraska carpenter who had answered an advertisement to occupy as a caretaker, and was leaving shortly.
Strimpel and Weber were taken to Machias and formally arrested for violation of the federal narcotics laws.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glenn v. Commonwealth
...the harmless error doctrine is inapplicable in the context of an appeal from a conditional guilty plea. See, e.g., United States v. Weber, 668 F.2d 552 (1st Cir. 1981); Jones v. Wisconsin, 562 F.2d 440 (7th Cir. 1977); Juarez, 903 P.2d at 249; Dinsmore, 49 P.3d at 838; State v. Monahan, 251......
-
Glenn v. Com.
...the harmless error doctrine is inapplicable in the context of an appeal from a conditional guilty plea. See, e.g., United States v. Weber, 668 F.2d 552 (1st Cir.1981); Jones v. Wisconsin, 562 F.2d 440 (7th Cir.1977); Juarez, 903 P.2d at 249; Dinsmore, 49 P.3d at 838; State v. Monahan, 76 Wi......
-
United States v. Sullivan
...known, or at least reasonably believed to be known, by external inspection, without opening the sock," see United States v. Weber, 668 F.2d 552, 562 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 2904, 73 L.Ed.2d 1313 (1982). Therefore, the defendant had no reasonable expectation of......
-
People v. Smith
...Supreme Court: 1979 Term, 94 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 202-203 (1980).21 A "reasonable expectation of privacy" was found in United States v. Weber, 668 F.2d 552, 561-562 (CA 1, 1981), cert. den. 457 U.S. 1105, 102 S.Ct. 2904, 73 L.Ed.2d 1313 (1982) (privacy interest in an object tied up in a rain slic......