Polk v. United States
| Citation | 314 F.2d 837 |
| Decision Date | 12 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 17819.,17819. |
| Parties | Jewel POLK, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
H. Donald Harris, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., and Jerrold M. Ladar, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and MADDEN, Judge of the Court of Claims.
Following a hearing held on remand pursuant to the mandate of this Court (Polk v. United States, 291 F.2d 230, 232 (1961)), the District Court found as follows: "The undisputed evidence now in the record * * * shows that insofar as defendant was concerned the rear yard and staircase were nothing more than a means of access to the back door of his flat." And further:
On the basis of the facts thus found, the judgment is affirmed. Compare Ellison v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 206 F.2d 476, 478 (1953), with Hobson v. United States, 226 F.2d 890, 894 (8th Cir., 1955).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Willard
...of the privacy of the defendants' (p. 500, 44 Cal.Rptr. p. 506) citing United States v. Polk (D.C.N.D.Cal.1961) 201 F.Supp. 555, affirmed 314 F.2d 837, and California v. Hurst, supra, 325 F.2d 891, 899, the latter case being relied upon by defendant herein. The court said in King that 'the ......
-
United States v. Williams
...v. Conti, 361 F.2d 153, 157 (2d Cir.1966), vacated on other grounds, 390 U.S. 204, 88 S.Ct. 899, 19 L.Ed.2d 1035 (1968); Polk v. United States, 314 F.2d 837 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 844, 84 S.Ct. 96, 11 L.Ed.2d 72 (1963); United States v. St. Clair, 240 F.Supp. 338 (S.D.N.Y.1965).......
-
U.S. v. Holland
...York City brownstone); United States v. Llanes, supra (hallway outside rear ground floor apartment). See also Polk v. United States, 314 F.2d 837 (9th Cir.1963) (per curiam) (outside stairway serving first and second floor flats), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 844, 84 S.Ct. 96, 11 L.Ed.2d 72 This ......
-
U.S. v. Martino
...under the old analysis-have cut the other way. See Polk v. United States, 291 F.2d 230, 232 (9th Cir. 1961), aff'd after remand, 314 F.2d 837 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 844, 84 S.Ct. 96, 11 L.Ed.2d 72 (1963). Since Katz v. United States and its reinforcement by, and perhaps expansio......