Tennant v. United States
| Decision Date | 12 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 21997.,21997. |
| Citation | 407 F.2d 52 |
| Parties | John Floyd TENNANT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Richard G. Tatus (argued), San Diego, Cal., for appellant.
Shelby Gott (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Edwin L. Miller, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges.
The appellant and another person were the occupants of a vehicle which the appellant drove into the United States from Mexico. Immediately after the automobile entered our Country, it was subjected to a routine border search by United States officials. The search revealed a quantity of marijuana, concealed in the automobile. After appellant's companion had gotten out of the automobile, the appellant sped away. A customs inspector, according to his testimony, had already "told appellant that he was under arrest for possession of marijuana." The officer attempted to remain with the vehicle but jumped from it, or was thrown from it, after it had traveled a short distance. The appellant was apprehended some six months later and charged, in a three-count indictment, with three offenses. In a jury trial, he was convicted of the three charges. The first two were violations of 21 U.S.C. § 176a, and from the judgment of conviction of these offenses, he does not appeal. He does appeal from the judgment of conviction on the third charge under which he was sentenced to a five-year term of confinement consecutive to the terms of his other sentences.
The third count of the indictment charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751, which proscribes escape by one "from the custody" of a federal officer while under "lawful arrest." The appellant urges us to hold that under the facts presented by the prosecution, he could not, as a matter of law, have been convicted of the offense which was charged. We do not agree. The customs officer was empowered to detain appellant for search. 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (1954). If appellant heard and understood the oral communication that he was "under arrest," the authorized detention became "custody" within the meaning of the statute in question. Also, in such event, the jury would have been warranted, under the facts of this case and appropriate instructions, in finding that the appellant was under "lawful arrest" before he departed the scene.
After the jury had been instructed, and after it had deliberated for a time, it requested additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castell v. Com., 1866-93-4
...of the arresting officer). "[C]ustody need not involve direct physical restraint." Keller, 912 F.2d at 1059. In Tennant v. United States, 407 F.2d 52 (9th Cir.1969), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that "[i]f appellant heard and understood the oral communication that he was 'under a......
-
Castell v. Com.
...in jail escaped from custody even though he was not in the actual physical custody of the arresting officer). In Tennant v. United States, 407 F.2d 52 (9th Cir.1969), a customs inspector told the driver of a car suspected of carrying drugs that he was under arrest. The driver fled and was l......
-
U.S. v. Peterson
...oral communication that he was 'under arrest,' the authorized detention became 'custody' within the meaning of the statute in question." 407 F.2d at 53. escape statute until he arrived at the marshal's office and surrendered. Counsel for defendant candidly concedes that custody need not be ......
-
United States v. Persinger
...custody to a charge of escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1982 Supp.). At page 1037 the court cited as indistinguishable Tennant v. United States, 407 F.2d 52 (9th Cir.1969). In that case the defendant was convicted of escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). He appealed, conte......