United States v. Brown, 73-2964. Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-2964. Summary Calendar.,73-2964. Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 488 F.2d 94 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Bentley BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Stephen K. Johnson, Gainesville, Fla. (court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
William H. Stafford, Jr., U.S. Atty., Pensacola, Fla., Clinton Ashmore, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Brown has pursued this appeal from an order revoking his probation following an evidentiary hearing. Claiming to be a lay minister in a religious organization, The Children of God, the appellant went to a shopping center to preach. His enthusiastic efforts were not welcomed, complaints were made by patrons of the center, and he was arrested for trespassing after warning. A subsequent search uncovered a controlled substance in the appellant's possession. Criminal charges were dropped, but this activity or the failure to report it to his probation officer or both facts served as the basis for his probation revocation.
Appellant contends that his arrest was not based upon probable cause and that the fruits of the unreasonable search should have been suppressed at his probation revocation hearing. Even assuming appellant is correct regarding the constitutionality of his arrest and search, he admits that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation hearings absent police harassment of probationers.1 Upon a review of this record we find inadequate evidence of police misconduct or harassment to support an application of the exclusionary rule. Furthermore, we note that regardless of the legality of the arrest and search, appellant was charged with failure to report the incident to the Probation Officer.2 Probation revocation is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court, and only upon a clear showing of abuse of that discretion will the district court's decision be disturbed.3
Affirmed.
* Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
1 See, United States ex rel. Sperling v. Fitzpatrick, 426 F.2d 1161 (2d Cir. 1970), and United States ex rel. Lombardino v. Heyd, 318 F.Supp. 648 (E.D.La. 1970), aff'd, 438 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam).
2 The district court's findings of fact note that failure to report the indictment was charged, but are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
...Cir.1975); United States v. Winsett, 518 F.2d 51 (9th Cir.1975); United States v. Farmer, 512 F.2d 160 (6th Cir.1975); United States v. Brown, 488 F.2d 94 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Hill, 447 F.2d 817 (7th Cir.1971); United States ex rel. Sperling v. Fitzpatrick, 426 F.2d 1161 (2nd On......
-
State v. Burkholder
...denied (1972), 409 U.S. 856, 93 S.Ct. 136, 34 L.Ed.2d 101; United States v. Wiygul (C.A.5, 1978), 578 F.2d 577; United States v. Brown (C.A.5, 1973), 488 F.2d 94 (alternative holding); United States v. Farmer (C.A.6, 1975), 512 F.2d 160, certiorari denied (1975), 423 U.S. 987, 96 S.Ct. 397,......
-
United States v. Manuszak
...States v. Winsett, 518 F.2d 51 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Farmer, 512 F.2d 160, 162-63 (6th Cir. 1975); United States v. Brown, 488 F.2d 94, 95 (5th Cir. 1973); United States ex rel. Sperling v. Fitzpatrick, 426 F.2d 1161 (2d Cir. 1970) (parole revocation). Rather, respondent relies ......
-
State v. Lombardo, 130A81
...States v. Farmer, 512 F.2d 160, 162-63 (6th Cir. 1975); cert. denied, 423 U.S. 987, 96 S.Ct. 397, 46 L.Ed.2d 305; United States v. Brown, 488 F.2d 94, 95 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Hill, 447 F.2d 817, 818-19 (7th Cir. 1971); United States ex rel. Lombardino v. Heyd, 318 F.Supp. 648, ......
-
Sentencing
...probation revocation proceedings because it would interfere with state’s ability to ensure probation conditions being met); U.S. v. Brown, 488 F.2d 94, 95 (5th Cir. 1973) (4th Amendment exclusionary rule inapplicable to probation revocation hearings absent evidence of police harassment of p......
-
Off the Mapp: parole revocation hearings and the Fourth Amendment.
...32, 32 (Pa. 1997), rev'd, 118 S. Ct. 2014 (1998). (99) See United States v. Farmer, 512 F.2d 160 (6th Cir. 1975); United States v. Brown, 488 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1973); Exparte Caffie, 516 So.2d 831 (Ala. 1987); Harris v. State, 606 S.W.2d 93 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980); People v. Ressin, 620 P.2d 7......