United States v. Bird, 71-2832 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 29 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2832 Summary Calendar.,71-2832 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 456 F.2d 1023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Curtis BIRD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
H. C. Hall, III, Laredo, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Anthony C. Aguilar, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Bird appeals from a jury conviction of facilitating the transportation of illegally imported marihuana, knowing the same to have been illegally imported in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a (1961). We affirm.
Bird maintains that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to infer a knowledge of illegal importation and was insufficient to show that the marihuana had actually been illegally imported. Considered in the light most favorable to the Government, the proof showed Bird knew the following facts. He was hired by a man in Albuquerque, New Mexico to travel over 800 miles to Laredo, Texas, a city on the Mexican border, to pick up a special strain of marihuana known as Acapulco Gold and transport it back to Albuquerque. Bird and a companion checked into a Laredo motel and left their pickup in the motel parking lot with the keys in the ignition. Subsequently some unknown person drove off in the pickup and remained away for approximately an hour. When the truck was returned, Bird looked into the special compartment mounted on the pickup bed and observed that the Acapulco Gold was present. Bird and his companion thereupon began their journey back to Albuquerque, but were arrested at a border check point 8 miles north of Laredo. A search of the compartment revealed one hundred and sixty-eight pounds of marihuana in three Mexican coffee sacks with Spanish language markings, and in one American bag marked "Beans". This evidence was sufficient to create an issue for the jury as to whether the marihuana was illegally imported and the defendant had knowledge thereof. See United States v. Maggard, 451 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1971).
Bird next asserts that the marihuana should have been suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. Bird contends that the immigration officials could not search the compartment without probable cause since it was not a spot likely to contain aliens. But even if it were, Bird argues that these officials could not examine the sacks since certainly no aliens could be hidden in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Hart, 73-3949
...denied, 414 U.S. 853, 94 S.Ct. 76, 38 L.Ed.2d 102 (1973). Temporary/permanent checkpoint 10 mi. N. of Laredo. Valid. United States v. Bird, 456 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 919, 93 S.Ct. 3039, 37 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1973). Temporary/permanent checkpoint 8 mi. N. of Laredo. Va......
-
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States
...and Barba-Reyes v. United States, 387 F.2d 91 (1967). 8 E. g., Kelly v. United States, 197 F.2d 162 (1952). See also United States v. Bird, 456 F.2d 1023, 1024 (1972); Ramirez v. United States, 263 F.2d 385, 387 (1959); and Haerr v. United States, 240 F.2d 533, 535 9 E. g., United States v.......
-
United States v. Cruz
...evidence is constitutionally invalid. This reasoning has been followed on many occasions by this court. See, e. g., United States v. Bird, 456 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Klaes, 453 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Howard, 433 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied,......
-
United States v. McDaniel
...in the statutes that would preclude them from later donning their customs hats during a proper border search. See United States v. Bird, 5 Cir.1972, 456 F.2d 1023; United States v. Maggard, supra. However, since they are operating on an "expanded border search" theory in this instance, the ......