U.S. v. Hensel, 81-3066
| Decision Date | 16 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-3066,81-3066 |
| Citation | 672 F.2d 578 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Lee HENSEL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
William Bluth, Max Kravitz, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant-appellant.
James Cissell, U. S. Atty., Robert C. Brichler, Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LIVELY and KEITH, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
On appeal from a jury conviction for receipt of a stolen motor vehicle which had moved in interstate commerce, the defendant-appellant raises two issues which require discussion. In the first place he contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance. The purpose of the requested continuance was to obtain the presence at the trial of one or more witnesses whom the defendant had attempted to subpoena. The district court denied the motion for a continuance conditionally and held a hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The defendant contended that a witness whom he had not been successful in subpoenaing could provide material evidence on the suppression issue. The defendant was not able to inform the court of the exact whereabouts of the witness or state that the witness would be present at a later time. The court then permitted the defendant to make a proffer of the testimony which he believed the witness would give if present. At the conclusion of the suppression hearing the district court found that even if the absent witness had been present and had testified as stated in the proffer, such testimony would not have changed the result and the court would have denied the motion to suppress. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motion for a continuance.
The second issue raised by the defendant relates to the search of a truck which he was driving at the time he was stopped by a law enforcement officer. When the defendant was unable to produce a driver's license or the registration for the truck, the officer asked the defendant to show him the serial number of the truck. At that time the defendant informed the officer that the truck had no serial number and the officer entered the cab of the truck and noticed that part of a manufacturer's decal had been scraped away. After taking possession of the truck the officer found its serial number by removing a black tape which had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peoples v. State
...States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973) (fn. 4: Defendant's interest was "totally illegitimate"); United States v. Hensel, 672 F.2d 578 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1107, 102 S.Ct. 2907, 73 L.Ed.2d 1316 (1982); United States v. Hargrove, 647 F.2d 411 (4th Cir.1979);......
-
Hall v. State
...States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973) (fn. 4: Defendant's interest was `totally illegitimate'); United States v. Hensel, 672 F.2d 578 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1107, 102 S.Ct. 2907, 73 L.Ed.2d 1316 (1982); United States v. Hargrove, 647 F.2d 411 (4th Cir.[1981]......
-
Josephs v. Com.
...have legitimate expectation of privacy in car he was driving, thus no standing to challenge stop and later search); United States v. Hensel, 672 F.2d 578, 579 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1107, 102 S.Ct. 2907, 73 L.Ed.2d 1316 (1982) (defendant lacked standing to challenge search of tr......
-
United States v. Soto
...50 F.3d 157, 161 (2d Cir.1995); see also United States v. Lanford, 838 F.2d 1351, 1353 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Hensel, 672 F.2d 578, 579 (6th Cir.1982) (per curiam); United States v. Hargrove, 647 F.2d 411, 412 (4th Cir.1981). Cf. United States v. Johnson, 584 F.3d 995, 1002 (10th ......
-
Table of Cases
...Henry, United States v., 447 U.S. 264 (1980) 126 Hensel, United States v., 509 F. Supp. 1376 (D. Me. 1981) 142 Hensel, United States v., 672 F.2d 578 (6th Cir. 1982) 151 Herdan, People v., 42 Cal. App. 3d 300 (1974) 112 Hernandez v. State, 548 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App. 1977) 219 Hernandez v. Un......
-
The warrantless interception of e-mail: Fourth Amendment search or free rein for the police?
...v. Betancur, 24 F.3d 73, 76-77 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Lanford, 838 F.2d 1351, 1353 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Hensel, 672 F.2d 578, 579 (6th Cir. 1982); United States v. Hargrove, 647 F.2d 411, 413 (4th Cir. (240.) 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12 (1978) ("Legitimation of expectati......
-
Chapter 6. Search and Seizure
...can have no expectation of privacy in a stolen car and thus has no right to deny consent to search the car. United States v. Hensel, 672 F.2d 578 (6th Cir. 1982); Hall v. State, 820 So. 2d 113 (Ala. App. 1999). • In general, there is no right to refuse consent to search stolen property beca......