King v. United States, No. 17027.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtRIVES, CAMERON and BROWN, Circuit
Citation258 F.2d 754
PartiesDonald Eugene KING, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Decision Date05 September 1958
Docket NumberNo. 17027.

258 F.2d 754 (1958)

Donald Eugene KING, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17027.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

September 5, 1958.


Jacob G. Hornberger, Laredo, Tex., for appellant.

Charles L. Short, Asst. U. S. Atty., Laredo, Tex., Malcolm R. Wilkey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., William

258 F.2d 755
B. Butler, U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee

Before RIVES, CAMERON and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

CAMERON, Circuit Judge.

Convicted upon a two-count indictment for importing and facilitating the transportation of heroin into the United States in violation of Section 174, Title 21 U.S.C.A. as amended,1 appellant Donald Eugene King appeals, assigning one ground of error of the trial court, to-wit, its denial of his motion to suppress evidence that he was subjected to fluoroscopy at the hands of a government physician resulting in the discovery of a foreign object in his abdomen which, when recovered through the use of Epsom Salts, turned out to be one gram of heroin enclosed in a plastic container.2 The court heard extensive oral testimony on the motion and decided it after consideration of briefs. The written opinion rendered by it3 contains a full statement of the facts and the law and, with what was there written, we are in complete agreement, finding, as we do, that the decision is amply supported by the evidence.4 Based upon the facts and the reasoning of the trial court's opinion, we think the motion to suppress was properly denied.

We feel constrained to supplement the opinion of the trial court in one or two particulars to comment upon phases of the case as it was presented to us. We are unable to agree with the casual disposition appellant seeks to make of some of the authorities upon which the trial court placed greatest reliance. Foremost among these is the decision of the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in Blackford v. United States, 1957, 247 F.2d 7455 (in which the Supreme Court has, since Judge Connally's opinion, denied certiorari, 1958, 356 U.S. 914, 78 S.Ct. 672, 2 L.Ed.2d 586). Of that decision appellant, in his brief, said: "The decision reached by the court in the Blackford case is a dangerous one and an incorrect one." We reject that statement in toto and we agree with the result there reached by the majority.

The reasoning of the majority opinion and the concurring opinion of Judge Chambers strike a fine balance between a strict regard for the rights of the individual and the avoidance of the sterility which would follow efforts at law enforcement if appellant's position should be accepted as sound.6

258 F.2d 756

Blackford and the well reasoned and documented case of United States v. Yee Ngee How, D.C.N.D.Cal.1952, 105 F. Supp. 517, are particularly valuable in their careful analysis of the cases demonstrating that searches of persons entering the United States from a foreign country are in a separate category from searches generally. Both cases cite Boyd v. United States, 1886, 116 U.S. 616, at pages 623-624, 6 S.Ct. 524, at page 528, 29 L.Ed. 746, in which this language is used:

"The
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • People v. Duncan, Cr. 11224
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 1974
    ...(9th Cir. 1960), 285 F.2d 14, 17; (cert. den. (1961), 366 U.S. 977, 81 S.Ct. 1946, 6 L.Ed.2d 1265); King v. United States (5th Cir. 1958), 258 F.2d 754, 756 (cert. den. (1959), 359 U.S. 939, 79 S.Ct. 652, 3 L.Ed.2d 639), and Landau v. United States Attorney (2d Cir. 1936), 82 F.2d 285, 286.......
  • Blefare v. United States, No. 19825.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 8, 1966
    ...recovered in that manner on border searches: United States v. Michel, 158 F.Supp. 34 (S.D.Tex.1957), affirmed as King v. United States, 258 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 359 U.S. 939, 79 S.Ct. 652, 3 L.Ed.2d 639. (Emetic) United States v. Willis, 85 F.Supp. 745 (S.D.Cal.1949). (Evi......
  • Amador-Gonzalez v. United States, No. 23480.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • February 23, 1968
    ...of persons and vehicles entering this country. Kelly v. United States, 5 Cir. 1952, 197 F.2d 162; King v. United States, 5 Cir. 1958, 258 F.2d 754; Davis, Federal Searches and Seizures 368-373 (1964). Under 19 U.S.C. §§ 482, 1581, 1582, the person conducting the search must be an officer au......
  • U.S. v. Brennan, No. 75-3939
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 13, 1976
    ...search and customs search cases. See United States v. Ramirez, 263 F.2d 385, 387 (5th Cir. 1959), citing King v. United States, 258 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 939, 79 S.Ct. 652, 3 L.Ed.2d 639 (1959) (customs); Page 718 Haerr v. United States, 240 F.2d 533 (5th Cir. 195......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • People v. Duncan, Cr. 11224
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 1974
    ...(9th Cir. 1960), 285 F.2d 14, 17; (cert. den. (1961), 366 U.S. 977, 81 S.Ct. 1946, 6 L.Ed.2d 1265); King v. United States (5th Cir. 1958), 258 F.2d 754, 756 (cert. den. (1959), 359 U.S. 939, 79 S.Ct. 652, 3 L.Ed.2d 639), and Landau v. United States Attorney (2d Cir. 1936), 82 F.2d 285, 286.......
  • Blefare v. United States, No. 19825.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 8, 1966
    ...recovered in that manner on border searches: United States v. Michel, 158 F.Supp. 34 (S.D.Tex.1957), affirmed as King v. United States, 258 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 359 U.S. 939, 79 S.Ct. 652, 3 L.Ed.2d 639. (Emetic) United States v. Willis, 85 F.Supp. 745 (S.D.Cal.1949). (Evi......
  • Amador-Gonzalez v. United States, No. 23480.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • February 23, 1968
    ...of persons and vehicles entering this country. Kelly v. United States, 5 Cir. 1952, 197 F.2d 162; King v. United States, 5 Cir. 1958, 258 F.2d 754; Davis, Federal Searches and Seizures 368-373 (1964). Under 19 U.S.C. §§ 482, 1581, 1582, the person conducting the search must be an officer au......
  • U.S. v. Brennan, No. 75-3939
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 13, 1976
    ...search and customs search cases. See United States v. Ramirez, 263 F.2d 385, 387 (5th Cir. 1959), citing King v. United States, 258 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 939, 79 S.Ct. 652, 3 L.Ed.2d 639 (1959) (customs); Page 718 Haerr v. United States, 240 F.2d 533 (5th Cir. 195......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT