Jackson v. United States
| Citation | 319 F.2d 782 |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20243.,20243. |
| Parties | Lloyd Hartley JACKSON and John Ernest Lucas, Jr., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Robert L. Dickson, Foy Clement, Abilene, for appellants.
T. Gary Cole, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., Barefoot Sanders, U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the judgment in the trial court by the defendants who were found guilty of unlawfully and knowingly possessing a firearm, as defined by Title 26, U.S.C. Sec. 5848(1), and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years.
The pertinent facts are as follows: Patrolman Bill Parton of Eastland, Texas, saw a 1955 or 1956 bronze Pontiac hardtop leave the vicinity of a phone booth and head for Cisco, Texas. He later checked the phone booth and saw that it had been robbed. A call was put out over the police radio which was heard by Patrolman Ray Sue of Cisco, Texas. There was heard a general description of the car but no license number was given, nor were the occupants identified. Patrolman Sue stationed himself outside the Cisco city limits in the early hours of the morning after the radio call. A 1953 Pontiac passed by him at a lawful rate of speed. He pulled up behind the car and stopped it. Shining his flashlight in the car he saw the Enfield rifle which led to the arrest and conviction of appellants of violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5821.
The appellants assign three claims of error. The most argued one is that there was an invalid search and seizure and that the court committed error when it denied appellants' motion to suppress the evidence.
While the car was stopped, not because of any offense being committed in the presence of Officer Sue and not because of any precise or specific information that the appellants had committed or were about to commit a criminal offense, it was not stopped as a result of a general car stoppage of cars or on mere suspicion.
One of the principal cases on an arrest based on mere suspicion is Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134. In this case the Supreme Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riggins v. United States, Civ. A. No. 4-496.
...officers saw the gun before they made any search of the truck, and therefore had a right to take possession of it. Jackson v. United States, 5 Cir., 319 F.2d 782 (1963). The above are the only points raised in the motion, but another matter not so raised will be answered at this time so tha......
-
Miller v. United States, 22443.
...A case more in point and having many important factual similarities to the one at bar is our recent decision in Jackson v. United States (5 Cir. 1963) 319 F.2d 782. In Jackson the arresting officer gained his information by radio with only a general description of the vehicle involved. He s......
-
Wright v. United States
...United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Wooten v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 380 F.2d 230; Jackson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 319 F.2d 782. There was abundant evidence supporting probable cause to make such an arrest. Appellant Wright was found in possession ......
-
State v. Martinez
...as to the radio dispatcher's source of information, are: United States v. Williams, 526 F.2d 1000 (6th Cir. 1975); Jackson v. United States, 319 F.2d 782 (5th Cir. 1963); State v. Sanchez, 82 N.M. 585, 484 P.2d 1295 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Everitt, 80 N.M. 41, 450 P.2d 927 Defendant argues ......