United States v. Johnston, 73-3499.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-3499.,73-3499. |
| Citation | 497 F.2d 397 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Frederick JOHNSTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Hugh John Gibson (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., Robert N. Harris, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
James W. Meyers, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Stephen G. Nelson, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DUNIWAY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and BURNS,* District Judge.
Johnston appeals from a conviction for possession of a controlled substance (50 pounds of marijuana) with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.
Johnston purchased a one-way Amtrak ticket from San Diego to New York City on June 14, 1973, with roomette accommodations from Los Angeles to New York. Acting on a previous request to inform him of persons making such arrangements, Amtrak personnel notified a federal drug agent of Johnston's ticket purchase. The agent proceeded to the San Diego Amtrak station and commenced observation of Johnston.
The agent noted that Johnston fit an informal "profile" of suspected marijuana couriers he had previously developed in that Johnston: (a) bought tickets of the sort described above ; (b) carried heavy luggage (two suitcases) ; and (c) handled his luggage himself rather than checking it with the railroad. The agent maintained his surveillance and followed Johnston as the latter boarded the train.
The train was crowded and the luggage compartments in the coach were filled. Hence, like many passengers that day, Johnston placed his luggage in the vestibule area between two cars. After Johnston left the vestibule area, the agent approached the luggage, visually examined its exterior, and then, bending down, sniffed the strong odor of marijuana coming from each suitcase. Not having keys to open them, he forced open the locked suitcases. They contained a number of kilos of marijuana in the usual wrappers. This discovery occurred about three minutes before the train was to leave San Diego. The agent then approached Johnston, advised him of his official identity, and then arrested and removed him and his luggage from the train. The agent had neither a search warrant nor Johnston's consent.
All these facts were brought out on the motion to suppress, which was denied by the District Court. Thereafter, Johnston waived his right to jury trial and submitted the case to the Court on a stipulated set of facts, which incorporated, by reference, the facts developed at the hearing on the motion to suppress. The Court found Johnston guilty; this appeal followed.
Johnston claims the action of the narcotics agent in approaching his luggage and bending down and sniffing constituted a search forbidden by the Fourth Amendment because it was without warrant or probable cause. Alternatively, Defendant contends, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wolohan
...furnish evidence of probable cause of "most persuasive character, . . ." United States v. Solis, supra at 881. In United States v. Johnston, 497 F.2d 397, 398 (9th Cir. 1974), the court held that a police officer's sniffing of a suitcase provided probable cause for a subsequent search. It h......
-
U.S. v. Beale
...1972) (police officer's olfactory detection of marijuana odor in car created probable cause for arrest). Accord, United States v. Johnston, 497 F.2d 397, 398 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Barron, 472 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 920, 93 S.Ct. 3063, 37 ......
-
State v. Browne
...apparent, the seizure can be justified under the "plain smell" analogue to the plain view doctrine. See, e.g., United States v. Johnston, 497 F.2d 397, 398 (9th Cir.1974) (warrantless search of luggage justified when federal drug agent smelled strong odor of marijuana emanating from luggage......
-
Robey v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara Cnty.
...( Reilly ) (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 40, 51–52, 125 Cal.Rptr. 504.) To buttress McKinnon, the District Attorney relies on United States v. Johnston (9th Cir.1974) 497 F.2d 397, which upheld the warrantless search of two suitcases on a departing train. But United States v. Johnston also predates ......