Hurley v. United States, 5331.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5331.,5331. |
| Citation | 273 A.2d 840 |
| Parties | Peter G. HURLEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Robert E. Lynch, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Robert S. Tignor, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry and Michael J. Madigan, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before FICKLING, GALLAGHER and PAIR, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from a conviction for carrying a pistol without a license in violation of D.C.Code 1967, § 22-3204.
At about 1:30 one morning a police officer saw a car driven by appellant parked in a crosswalk at 14th and T Streets, N. W. while a passenger was apparently conversing with a lady standing near the curb. The officer pulled the squad car in behind appellant to advise him he was blocking the crosswalk, whereupon appellant, with the officer following, turned right on T Street, south on 13th Street and west on S Street and passed a red light at 14th and S Streets. He returned to 14th and T Streets, where the officer stopped him and issued two traffic tickets for passing a red light and obstructing a crosswalk. Appellant indicated he did not intend to post collateral so the officer told him to follow along in his car to the police station. As they were entering the police station, appellant physically threatened the officer and did so again inside the station. He was charged with disorderly conduct, "advised of his rights" and searched prior to incarceration. Approximately nine rounds of .22 caliber ammunition were found on his person.
The police officer testified that after appellant was incarcerated he went to the car for the purpose of moving it to the police parking lot for safekeeping. Appellant was not the registered owner of the car. Upon entering the vehicle, the officer saw a .22 caliber pistol protruding from under the front seat, which proved to be loaded. He then left the car where it was and brought the gun into the station. The registered owner of the car came into the station shortly thereafter, having been placed under arrest by another officer for another charge. He stated that his wife was en route to post collateral and he would remove his car. For this reason, says the officer, the car was not impounded. A pre-trial motion to suppress the gun was denied after a hearing. The admissibility of the gun into evidence was raised at the subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. U.S., 09-CM-1233.
...Officer Dean saw the ammunition clip in plain view, the police had probable cause to seize and search the vehicle."); Hurley v. United States, 273 A.2d 840, 841 (D.C.1971) (holding that the discovery of nine bullets but no weapon during the search of a driver created "probable cause to sear......
-
Punch v. United States
...Having discovered three weapons, the subsequent search of the vehicle at the scene was constitutionally justified. Hurley v. United States, D.C.App., 273 A.2d 840 (1971).5 Part Appellants' next assignment of error pertains to an evidentiary ruling of the trial court. Over appellants' object......
-
One 1965 Econoline, I. D. No. E16JH702043, Arizona License No. EC-7887, In re
... ... The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees 'the right of the people to be secure in ... ...
-
Terrell v. United States
...90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); United States v. Free, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 198, 202, 437 F.2d 631, 635 (1970); Hurley v. United States, D.C.App., 273 A.2d 840, 841 (1971). As to the point respecting asserted inadequate representation, it is noted that counsel was fully aware of the previ......