United States v. Freeman, 24468.

Decision Date26 May 1970
Docket NumberNo. 24468.,24468.
Citation426 F.2d 1351
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis Robert FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Joseph M. Geden, (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Duane K. Craske, U. S. Atty., Benjamin H. Kelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., District of Guam, Agana, Guam, for appellant.

Stephen M. Okano, Honolulu, Hawaii, Trapp, Gayle & Benson of Agana, Guam, for appellee.

Before JERTBERG, BROWNING and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.

JERTBERG, Circuit Judge:

Appellant, United States of America, appeals from an order of the district court suppressing the use in evidence against the defendant in any criminal proceedings of two marihuana plants which the defendant claimed had been wrongfully confiscated and seized.

This court's jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal is based upon 18 U.S.C. § 3731 and 28 U.S.C. § 1294.

The evidence developed at the evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress is not in dispute and may be summarized as follows:

Only one witness, Captain Henry Taitano of the Department of Public Safety of the Territory of Guam, testified at the hearing. He testified that an unidentified informer reported to a Guam policeman that a marihuana plant was located outside of the back door of Apartment 14, a second floor apartment occupied by the defendant; the building in which Apartment 14 was located contained sixteen apartments on two floors; access to the second floor was by stairways located at each end; each stairway provided access to both the rear and front walkway areas of the eight apartments located on the second floor; both the front and rear areas were open and surrounded by a common bannister; in order to go to the apartments located near the center of the building, it was necessary to pass in front or to the rear of those other apartments located nearer to the ends of the building; these walkways were open to all persons for the purpose of access to the apartments;
The witness, accompanied by a fellow officer, proceeded to the apartment house and arrived there about 7:00 o\'clock in the morning for the purpose of investigating the information supplied by the informer; the officers did not have a search warrant or warrant of arrest; after parking the car, the two officers approached the apartment building from the rear; from the ground they observed the plants "right up against the wall"; the officers walked up the stairway at the end of the building to the second floor, down the walkway leading past the other apartments to the rear of defendant\'s apartment where they observed the marihuana plants growing in a can, which was in plain view; the witness identified the plants as marihuana; the witness walked around the end of the apartments on the second floor to the front door of defendant\'s apartment and knocked on the door; the other officer remained at the back door; the front door was opened by defendant\'s wife, and the witness asked to speak to Mr. Freeman, who then came to the door;
The officer identified himself and stated the purpose of the visit was to talk to the defendant about the marihuana plants; the officer was invited into the apartment; the officer advised defendant "of his constitutional rights"; defendant stated that the plants were his, and he described them as a "weed"; the officer informed the defendant he would like to take the marihuana plants and would give the defendant a receipt, which he did; the officer made no arrest of the defendant but requested him to appear at Police Headquarters so that he could be questioned about the plants; and following the interview the officers departed with the marihuana plants.

The district court granted the motion to suppress on the ground that the location of the marihauna in relation to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Com. v. Hall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1975
    ...United States v. Llanes, 398 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. den. 393 U.S. 1032, 89 S.Ct. 647, 21 L.Ed.2d 576 (1969); United States v. Freeman, 426 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Lewis, 227 F.Supp. 433 (S.D.N.Y.1964); People v. Berutko, 71 Cal.2d 84, 77 Cal.Rptr. 217, 453 P.2d 1......
  • United States v. Williams
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • June 17, 1983
    ...v. Cruz Pagan, 537 F.2d 554, 557-58 (1st Cir.1976); United States v. Anderson, 533 F.2d 1210, 1214 (D.C.Cir.1976); United States v. Freeman, 426 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir.1970); United States v. Conti, 361 F.2d 153, 157 (2d Cir.1966), vacated on other grounds, 390 U.S. 204, 88 S.Ct. 899, 19 L.Ed.2......
  • U.S. v. Garcia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 10, 1993
    ...purpose that any evidence inadvertently seen by them must be excluded as the fruit of an illegal search."); United States v. Freeman, 426 F.2d 1351, 1352-53 (9th Cir.1970) (no search when officers spotted marijuana in plain view at the rear of an apartment after climbing a stairway which pr......
  • Brown v. US
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 1993
    ...v. Dickens, 695 F.2d 765, 778 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1092, 103 S.Ct. 1792, 76 L.Ed.2d 359 (1983); United States v. Freeman, 426 F.2d 1351, 1353 (9th Cir.1970). 7 The court took a short recess after King's direct testimony. After the recess, while the jury was still out of the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT