United States v. Hitchcock
Decision Date | 22 January 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 72-1308.,72-1308. |
Citation | 467 F.2d 1107 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin HITCHCOCK, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Tom Karas, Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, Ariz. for defendant-appellant.
William C. Smitherman, U. S. Atty., Thomas N. Crowe, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BARNES, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Denied January 22, 1973. See 93 S.Ct. 973.
Hitchcock appeals his conviction by a jury of six counts of presenting fraudulent income tax refund claims to the Internal Revenue Service. He was already serving a life term for murder in the Arizona State Prison when he committed these tax offenses for which he received six concurrent five year sentences to run consecutively to his life sentence. We affirm.
Appellant's Arizona prison cell was searched without a warrant and documentary evidence was found which was received by the court over appellant's motion to suppress. He contends that his Fourth Amendment right was violated by the warrantless search and seizure in his prison cell. We disagree.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), the Supreme Court enunciated a new standard for determining the limitations of the Fourth Amendment. Until now, this court has not been faced with the problem of applying this new test to searches involving prison inmates. The protection of the Fourth Amendment no longer depends upon "constitutionally protected" places. Instead, we must consider "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as `reasonable.'" Katz, supra at 361, 88 S.Ct. at 516 (Harlan, J., concurring).
While Hitchcock plainly had the requisite subjective intent to keep the documents private, we do not think that his expectation was reasonable. Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 143, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 1220, 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962). See Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1060, 92...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hudson v. Palmer Palmer v. Hudson
...held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in a prison cell. See Christman v. Skinner, 468 F.2d 723 (CA2 1972); United States v. Hitchcock, 467 F.2d 1107 (CA9 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 916, 93 S.Ct. 973, 35 L.Ed.2d 279 6. In Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 143-144, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 12......
-
Bonner v. Coughlin
...of privacy with respect to his cell and therefore that the Fourth Amendment is completely inapplicable. See United States v. Hitchcock, 467 F.2d 1107, 1108 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 916, 93 S.Ct. 973, 35 L.Ed.2d 279. Contra, United States v. Savage, 482 F.2d 1371, 1373 (9th Ci......
-
Smith v. State
...States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 1975) Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1088, 96 S.Ct. 881, 47 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976); United States v. Hitchcock, 467 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1972), Cert. denied, 410 U.S. 916, 93 S.Ct. 973, 35 L.Ed.2d 279 (1973); Smith v. State, 510 P.2d 793 (Alaska), Cert. denied, ......
-
U.S. v. Dawson
...was some communication between himself and another prisoner, and thus, establish probable cause. In the case of United States v. Hitchcock, 467 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 916, 93 S.Ct. 973, 35 L.Ed.2d 279 (1973), this Court (using the test of Katz v. United States, 38......