Rios v. United States, No. 15723.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | POPE, FEE and HAMLEY, Circuit |
| Citation | 256 F.2d 173 |
| Parties | Jose Terrones RIOS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 15723. |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1958 |
256 F.2d 173 (1958)
Jose Terrones RIOS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 15723.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
May 26, 1958.
Harvey M. Grossman, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Leila F. Bulgrin, Lloyd F. Dunn, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before POPE, FEE and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.
Jose Terrones Rios appeals from his conviction for violating § 2 of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, as amended, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.
Rios contends that it was error to receive in evidence a package of narcotics which had been seized by city police, where a state court had supressed the same evidence, and acquitted, in a prosecution involving the identical incident.
The facts essential to a consideration of this contention are as follows: Los Angeles police officers, watching for possible illegal narcotics activity in a problem-area of the city, took under surveillance a taxicab which was parked in a lot next to an apartment house. They observed Rios approach the taxicab, look furtively about, and enter. As the vehicle drove away, the police officers followed in an unmarked police car. The time was 11:00 p. m.
When the taxicab stopped at a traffic signal, the two officers alighted from their car and approached. They had no warrant for Rios' arrest, had not seen him commit any crime, and had no idea as to his identity. One officer came to the side of the taxicab where Rios was seated, and orally identified himself as a police officer. He exhibited his badge and shined his flashlight upon it. He then observed that Rios reached into his pocket and dropped an object on the floor of the taxicab.
Focusing his light upon the object, the officer saw that it was a transparent rubber contraceptive apparently filled with a light colored powder. The officer knew that it was a common practice for dealers in narcotics to use this means of carrying heroin.
Immediately thereafter, Rios pushed the right door out as the officer simultaneously pulled it out. Rios alighted.
Charged in the California Superior Court with illegal possession of narcotics, contrary to California Health and Safety Code, § 11500, Rios was accorded a preliminary hearing. A trial was thereafter had in the state court. The only evidence received was the reporter's transcript of the preliminary hearing. A motion to suppress the evidence, consisting of the package of heroin, was made and granted. The court held that the police officers did not have probable cause for arresting Rios without a warrant of arrest, and that seizure of the evidence without a search warrant was therefore unlawful. Rios was then acquitted.
The police officer who had arrested Rios, after conferring with his superiors, went to the federal narcotics office. As a result, an indictment was returned by a federal grand jury, charging Rios with a violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, referred to above. This charge related to the same incident and narcotics involved in his state prosecution.
Rios moved in the federal district court to quash the indictment on the ground that it had been obtained solely on the same evidence which had been suppressed by the state court. In the alternative, and for the same reason, he moved to suppress this evidence.
At a pretrial hearing on these motions, Rios offered a transcript of the state court hearing in which the evidence was ordered suppressed. On the basis of this showing, he urged that one or the other of his motions be granted. The district court declined to grant either of the motions on this showing, and stated that it would receive further evidence. Rios then introduced a transcript of the state court preliminary hearing in which the facts which led to the state court ruling were developed. The government called the two police officers to give further testimony, and they were cross-examined.
The district court then held (1) that it was not bound by the state court determination that the evidence had been illegally seized; (2) that the seizure was legal because made incident to a lawful arrest; and (3) that there was no federal participation in the arrest and seizure. The motions were accordingly denied and the narcotics were later received in evidence.
It will be observed that the denial of these motions rests upon two grounds: (1) That the evidence was legally seized; and (2) that, if it was illegally seized, it is nevertheless admissible because federal authorities did not participate in the seizure.
Concerning the first of these grounds, Rios does not argue that the evidence submitted to the federal court fails to support the finding and conclusion that the evidence was legally seized. He contends only that the state court determination that the evidence was illegally seized is binding upon the federal court and precluded such court from making an independent determination.
We do not agree. A state court prosecution and acquittal does not preclude subsequent federal prosecution and conviction of the same person on a similar federal charge. Serio v. United States, 5 Cir., 203 F.2d 576.1 This being so, we perceive no reason why any state court ruling which leads to an acquittal in that court is binding on the federal court in a later federal prosecution.
It is true that here the state court ruling which led to acquittal pertains to a basic right — the right to be secure in person and property — which right is enforceable against both federal
But the federal trial court did not here contest that constitutional principle or deny to California the right to apply, in its own way and in its own proceedings, the mutually-followed remedy. That is all California sought to do in this case — and it succeeded — by excluding the evidence and acquitting Rios of the state charge. California has not sought to exclude that evidence from use in a federal criminal proceeding.4
The federal court has, it is true, differed from the state court as to the findings and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence pertaining to the method of seizure.5 No presently-recognized principle of constitutional law, evidence, comity, or res judicata6 prevented it from doing so. If a wholly novel doctrine is to be fashioned to tie the hands of the federal courts in this regard, it ought not to be done by an intermediate appellate court.
We therefore hold that the federal trial court was entitled to make its own determination as to the legality of the seizure, and that its uncontested finding and conclusion that the seizure was legal warranted denial of the motions in question.
We reach the same result upon consideration of the second ground relied upon by the trial court in denying these motions.
Where it is conceded by the parties, or determined by the federal trial court, that incriminating evidence was illegally seized, it may nevertheless be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moeller
...denied, 381 U.S. 902, 85 S.Ct. 1446, 14 L.Ed.2d 284 (1965); United States v. Wapnick, 315 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1963); Rios v. United States, 256 F.2d 173 (9th Cir. 1958); State v. Smith, 359 So.2d 160, 163 (La.1978); State v. West, 260 N.W.2d 215, 219 (S.D.1977); State v. Rogers, 90 N.M. 604, 6......
-
Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 3 Div. 258
...his files and in those of his counsel. * * *. There is yet no 'silver platter' doctrine in the field of discovery.' Rios v. U.S., 9 Cir., 256 F.2d 173, reversed 364 U.S. 253 (80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d In 4 Moore's Federal Practice, beginning on page 1381 and ending on page 1419, there is a l......
-
Ogden v. United States, No. 17376.
...U.S. 1, 81 S.Ct. 1357, 6 L.Ed.2d 625: ("Failure * * * to grant a motion not made is not reversible error * * *"); Rios v. United States, 256 F.2d 173, 178 (9th Cir. 1958), vacated on other grounds 364 U.S. 253, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (under Jencks 28 Fed.R.Crim.P. 16, 17(c), 18 U.S.C......
-
Saldana v. State, No. 90-24
...that the illegality of the state seizure has been established. How it has been established is immaterial." Rios v. United States, 256 F.2d 173, 177 (9th Cir.1958), cert. granted, 359 U.S. 965, 79 S.Ct. 881, 3 L.Ed.2d 833 (1959), vacated, 364 U.S. 253, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960). W......
-
State v. Moeller
...denied, 381 U.S. 902, 85 S.Ct. 1446, 14 L.Ed.2d 284 (1965); United States v. Wapnick, 315 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1963); Rios v. United States, 256 F.2d 173 (9th Cir. 1958); State v. Smith, 359 So.2d 160, 163 (La.1978); State v. West, 260 N.W.2d 215, 219 (S.D.1977); State v. Rogers, 90 N.M. 604, 6......
-
Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 3 Div. 258
...his files and in those of his counsel. * * *. There is yet no 'silver platter' doctrine in the field of discovery.' Rios v. U.S., 9 Cir., 256 F.2d 173, reversed 364 U.S. 253 (80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d In 4 Moore's Federal Practice, beginning on page 1381 and ending on page 1419, there is a l......
-
Ogden v. United States, No. 17376.
...U.S. 1, 81 S.Ct. 1357, 6 L.Ed.2d 625: ("Failure * * * to grant a motion not made is not reversible error * * *"); Rios v. United States, 256 F.2d 173, 178 (9th Cir. 1958), vacated on other grounds 364 U.S. 253, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (under Jencks 28 Fed.R.Crim.P. 16, 17(c), 18 U.S.C......
-
Saldana v. State, No. 90-24
...that the illegality of the state seizure has been established. How it has been established is immaterial." Rios v. United States, 256 F.2d 173, 177 (9th Cir.1958), cert. granted, 359 U.S. 965, 79 S.Ct. 881, 3 L.Ed.2d 833 (1959), vacated, 364 U.S. 253, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960). W......