Thomas v. United States, 22063.
Citation | 134 US App. DC 48,412 F.2d 1095 |
Decision Date | 19 May 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 22063.,22063. |
Parties | Aaron S. THOMAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. M. Michael Cramer, Washington, D. C., (appointed by this court) for appellant. Mr. H. Thomas Sisk, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) also entered an appearance for appellant.
Mr. James A. Treanor, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Victor W. Caputy, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and McGOWAN, Circuit Judges.
In this appeal from a conviction of violating two federal narcotics statutes, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a); 21 U.S.C. § 174 (1964), the only issue is that of whether a search of appellant's person was illegal because it was not incidental to a valid arrest. A pretrial motion to suppress the narcotics revealed by the search was heard and denied by the District Court. When the case came on for trial before another judge some two months later, appellant waived a jury and also renewed his motion to suppress. The trial court heard the evidence offered by the parties on this score, and denied the motion on the basis of its findings of fact and conclusions of law. An adjudication of guilt inevitably followed.
Although the case is seemingly a close one, involving an arrest for attempted unlawful entry which is a misdemeanor only, we are unable to say that the trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, or that the facts as found do not admit of the conclusions of law drawn from them. If it be assumed that the arresting officer was acting in good faith, the circumstances were such that it could be said that a misdemeanor took place in his "presence" as distinct from "within his view."1 The former has customarily been thought to embody a less restricted spatial concept than the latter, and to comprehend awareness through senses other than that of vision alone. The District Court found this to be the case here, and we accept its findings.
1 The phrases quoted are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rand v. Rowland
... ... Estes, Defendants-Appellees ... No. 95-15428 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Ninth Circuit ... Argued and Submitted ... G. NELSON, KLEINFELD, HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges ... Opinion by Judge TASHIMA; ... ...
-
Jacobsen v. Filler
... ... No. 84-1603 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Ninth Circuit ... Submitted on Briefs ... ...
-
MacLeod v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MED. C., 97-CV-1678.
... ... Moore, supra, 994 F.2d at 876; Thomas v. United States, 586 A.2d 1228, 1230 (D.C.1991); Wright v. Wright, 386 ... ...
-
United States v. Williams, 23597.
...it from that standpoint, they had a basis for making a valid arrest of the defendant on that ground alone. In Thomas v. United States, 134 U.S. App.D.C. 48, 412 F.2d 1095 (1969), where we upheld the validity of a narcotics search, the circumstances were substantially the same but the facts ......