Brown v. Kearney
| Decision Date | 28 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 22760.,22760. |
| Citation | 355 F.2d 199 |
| Parties | Emory Newton BROWN, Appellant, v. J. O. KEARNEY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia and Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, U. S. Board of Parole, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Emory Newton Brown, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Thomas K. McWhorter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., for appellees.
Before GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and HUGHES, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court denying appellant's petition for habeas corpus. Appellant contends in his petition that the revocation of his conditional release from the United States penitentiary was based solely on evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure.
While a parolee is entitled to constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure, it is not necessary for us to pass on this question in reaching our decision.
Parole is a matter of grace, not of right, and the revoking of parole is within the sound discretion of the Parole Board. Excluding the evidence obtained by the search and seizure, the record shows there were ample grounds upon which to base the decision of the Parole Board and there was no abuse of its discretion in revoking the parole of petitioner.
The order of the United States District Court in denying appellant's petition for habeas corpus is therefore affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ralph Martinez, In re
...implies that a parolee is without any constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. (See Brown v. Kearney (5th Cir. 1966) 355 F.2d 199, 200.)6 Searches by parole officers pursuant to their duties, just as other administrative searches (see Camara v. Municipal Court (......
-
State v. Short, 12–1150.
...did not apply when parole supervisors searched parolees). On the other hand, there was contrary authority. See, e.g., Brown v. Kearney, 355 F.2d 199, 200 (5th Cir.1966) (finding a parolee is entitled to constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure); People v. Overall, 7 Mich.Ap......
-
State v. Cullison
...against such search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Hallman, 365 F.2d 289 (3d Cir. 1966); Brown v. Kearney, 355 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1966); Martin v. United States, 183 F.2d 436 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 904, 71 S.Ct. 280, 95 L.Ed. 654 A similar position ......
-
People v. Eastin
...authorities that suggests that this defendant was not entitled to constitutional protection from illegal seizure. In Brown v. Kearney, Warden, 5 Cir., 355 F.2d 199, the Court declared that 'a parolee is entitled to constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure'. In United States......