United States v. Blackburn
| Decision Date | 10 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 17600.,17600. |
| Citation | 389 F.2d 93 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence Allen BLACKBURN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Boyce F. Martin, Jr., Louisville, Ky., for appellant.
L. Ray Patterson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for appellee, Gilbert S. Merritt, Jr., U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., on the brief.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, COMBS, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is a direct appeal by Clarence Allen Blackburn from a conviction on two counts of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Count one charged that Clarence Blackburn, Richard Matthew Sorgmann, Barbara Jo Blackburn and Norma Jean Hough violated the Travel Act (Section 1952, Title 18, U.S.C.) by travelling by motor vehicle from St. Louis, Missouri, to Nashville, Tennessee, with the intention of carrying on prostitution in violation of the laws of Tennessee. Count two charged that Blackburn and Sorgmann transported two females, interstate from Alabama to Tennessee for the purpose of prostitution in violation of Section 2421, Title 18, U.S.C. There was a third count which was dismissed at the trial because of insufficient evidence. Barbara Jo Blackburn and Norma Jean Hough were dismissed from count one without trial. Blackburn and Sorgmann were tried jointly before a jury and were found guilty on counts one and two. Blackburn was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. Sorgmann's appeal was dismissed on his motion.
Without going into the sordid details, suffice it to say that it is charged that Blackburn and his wife, Barbara, Sorgmann and Norma Jean Hough travelled by automobile from St. Louis to Nashville for the purpose of having the women engage in prostitution. The evidence strongly supports the charge.
While out riding, looking for work, Blackburn and Sorgmann encountered Robin Ann Wilson and Kathleen Thompson near Pulaski, Tennessee. The girls were aged fourteen and fifteen, respectively, and were hitchhiking. They indicated they wanted a ride and the men picked them up and took them to Huntsville, Alabama, where they bought clothes for the girls. From Huntsville, they took the girls to Nashville where the four adults were registered in the Sam Davis Hotel. Sorgmann and Hough kept Kathleen in their room and Blackburn and his wife kept Robin Ann with them. The girls were held against their will and were taught the ways of prostitution.
On the afternoon or evening of the second day that the girls were with the Blackburn party, Kathleen feigned illness and was taken to a hospital by Sorgmann. She told her story to a nurse who called the police. The police took Sorgmann and Kathleen to the police station and subsequently Blackburn appeared at the police station voluntarily. Apparently Barbara Jo and Hough were already there and all four of the adults were placed under arrest.
After the defendants had been interrogated and placed under arrest, Major Casey of the Metropolitan Police Department sent Sergeant Searcy and Officer Brown to the Sam Davis Hotel to get and return to the police station all of the belongings of the parties. Among these belongings were a pistol and notebook which were taken from the room of Blackburn. Major Casey gave the pistol and notebook to John E. Rogers, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The other items were given to other officers who itemized them and turned them over to the booking room.
The pistol and notebook were introduced into evidence and this is the principal assignment of error on this appeal. It is claimed that this constituted an illegal search without a warrant.
The police employed their usual procedure when a person who was staying in a hotel or motel room was arrested. In sending for the belongings of the parties there was no intention of making a search for evidence or instruments of the crime. The conduct of the police department in sending for the personal effects of the parties, itemizing them and storing them for safekeeping was entirely reasonable and logical. We find that the action of the police officers does not constitute a search.
Haerr v. United States, 240 F.2d 533, 535 (C.A.5).
It is claimed that "The introduction of these two items and the witnesses that testified with reference thereto was the only evidence introduced to show a violation of Section 1952 of Title 18." This is not supported by the evidence.
The pistol has no relation to count one of the indictment which charges a violation of Section 1952. The only reference to the pistol concerns count two of the indictment which charges a violation of Section 2421, Title 18, U.S.C.
There is substantial extraneous evidence that the appellant did have a pistol. Robin Ann Wilson testified that on the day that she and Kathleen were picked up by the appellant and Sorgmann, the appellant had Sorgmann and Kathleen get out of the car and that the appellant attempted to force her to have intercourse with him at the point of a gun.
Kathleen testified that Clarence (appellant) handed Sorgmann a gun under the table. Sorgmann asked on cross-examination: "Are you certain I didn't give it to Clarence?" She answered:
The following excerpt from the cross-examination of Miss Wilson by the appellant with reference to a gun would indicate that it was assumed that there was a gun:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tully
...action. The term implies exploratory investigation or quest.' Haerr v. United States, 240 F.2d 533, 535 (5th Cir.); United States v. Blackburn, 389 F.2d 93, 95 (6th Cir.); DiMarco v. Greene, 385 F.2d 556, 561 (6th Cir.); United States ex rel. Stacey v. Pate, 324 F.2d 934, 935 (7th Cir.), ce......
-
Young v. City of Radcliff
...prosecution of a criminal action." Taylor v. Michigan Dept. of Nat. Res., 502 F.3d 452, 457 (6th Cir.2007)(quoting United States v. Blackburn, 389 F.2d 93, 95 (6th Cir.1968)). Fourth Amendment protections hinge on the occurrence of a search. Burton and Smallwood argue that because they were......
-
Taylor v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources
...with a view to the discovery of contraband or evidence of guilt to be used in prosecution of a criminal action." United States v. Blackburn, 389 F.2d 93, 95 (6th Cir.1968). Of course, not all non-criminal investigations are permissible. As the Supreme Court stated in Camara v. Municipal Cou......
-
State v. Mahoney
...marijuana was in the suitcase, and hence searching the suitcase was not an unreasonable search. Chambers, supra; also see U.S. v. Blackburn, 389 F.2d 93 (C.A. 6 Cir.). The defendant next contends that the state failed to prove a prima facie case of transporting marijuana as required under A......
-
Authentication
...is no link between the accused and the crime, and the admission of the evidence is prejudicial. See also United States v. Blackburn , 389 F.2d 93 (6th Cir. 1968). There must be an independent evidentiary basis to tie the accused to the use of a weapon before the weapon may be used against a......
-
Authentication
...is no link between the accused and the crime, and the admission of the evidence is prejudicial. See also United States v. Blackburn , 389 F.2d 93 (6th Cir. 1968). There must be an independent evidentiary basis to tie the accused to the use of a weapon before the weapon may be used against a......
-
Authentication
...is no link between the accused and the crime, and the admission of the evidence is prejudicial. See also United States v. Blackburn , 389 F.2d 93 (6th Cir. 1968). There must be an independent evidentiary basis to tie the accused to the use of a weapon before the weapon may be used against a......
-
Authentication
...is no link between the accused and the crime, and the admission of the evidence is prejudicial. See also United States v. Blackburn , 389 F.2d 93 (6th Cir. 1968). There must be an independent evidentiary basis to tie the accused to the use of a weapon before the weapon may be used against a......