Johnson v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 16063.,16063. |
| Citation | 110 US App. DC 351,293 F.2d 539 |
| Parties | Clarence C. JOHNSON, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Harold F. Golding, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court) for appellant.
Mr. Arnold T. Aikens, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., at the time of argument, and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time of argument, were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Donald S. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was convicted of "forging and uttering" under 22 D.C.Code § 1401 (1951). At his own request he was tried without a jury. A motion to suppress the victim's stolen credit card was denied and the appellant contends this was error because the search warrant which authorized search of his dwelling did not describe the credit card but only other stolen articles which were recovered in the search.1
A police officer engaged in searching appellant's bedroom under a warrant which described numerous articles of stolen personal property2 opened a dresser drawer in the process of search. In the drawer he saw a credit card issued in the name of the complaining witness whose other stolen personal property had just been found in appellant's possession. With the credit card was a statement from Lansburgh's Department Store also in the complaining witness' name. Neither the credit card nor the statement was specified in the warrant.
Appellant contends that it was reversible error for the District Court to refuse to suppress the card and statement as evidence. He argues that the police could not seize the credit card and statement without securing a new warrant as provided by Rule 41(c) Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A. With the credit card were documents of purchase of merchandise in the name of the same person. Appellant's brief states that the searching officer "discovered what ostensibly appeared to be forged documents * * *." An officer engaged in a lawful search is not confined to seizing only those items described in the warrant, especially where the unlisted items seized are instrumentalities of a crime. Palmer v. United States, 1953, 92 U.S. App.D.C. 103, 104, 203 F.2d 66, 67. See also ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Sklaroff
...be seized if discovered in the course of a lawful search. Bryant v. United States, 5 Cir. 1958, 252 F.2d 746; Johnson v. United States, 1961, 110 U.S.App. D.C. 351, 293 F.2d 539, cert. denied 375 U.S. 888, 84 S.Ct. 167, 11 L.Ed.2d 118; Marron v. United States, 1927, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 7......
-
State v. Iverson
...or contraband can be lawfully seized in a search without a warrant incident to an arrest); Johnson v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 351, 293 F.2d 539, 540 (1961), cert. denied 375 U.S. 888, 84 S.Ct. 167, 11 L.Ed.2d 118 (1963) (stolen credit card seized incident to a search under a search ......
-
United States v. Maude
...at the time he came across the cards, he was not properly engaged in execution of the warrant. More than a decade ago we held, in Johnson v. United States,64 that where that is so, the fact that an incriminating article discovered is unspecified in the warrant does not impugn the validity o......
-
State v. Johnson
...United States v. Eisner, 297 F.2d 595, 597 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 859, 82 S.Ct. 947, 8 L.Ed.2d 17; Johnson v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 351, 293 F.2d 539, 540, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 888, 84 S.Ct. 167, 11 L.Ed.2d 118; Bryant v. United States, 252 F.2d 746, 749 (5th Cir.); ......