United States v. Luckett, 73-1632.
| Decision Date | 17 August 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1632.,73-1632. |
| Citation | 484 F.2d 89 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harry Sherman LUCKETT, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Eric A. Nobles, Gregory C. Glynn, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
John K. Van De Kamp, Federal Public Defender, Gail M. Title, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Before BROWNING and ELY, Circuit Judges, and ZIRPOLI, District Judge.*
The government appeals from an order of the district court granting appellee's motion to suppress evidence. The district court relied upon several grounds in granting the motion. Because we agree that the police improperly held appellee until a warrant check could be run, we do not reach the other issues raised by the subsequent events.
At approximately 12:30 a. m., in the early morning of a Saturday, two city police officers saw appellee cross a street in Gardena, California, against the traffic light. The officers drove up to him and waved him to the car. He responded immediately and, after being questioned about the possible jaywalking violation, he readily admitted his error. At the request of one of the officers, he then produced five pieces of identification in the name of Peter Richard Schily. Although the identification produced did not include a driver's license, appellee explained that this was because he could not drive. The officer accepted the identification and executed a traffic citation. Throughout this time appellee had been cooperative and had done nothing to arouse particular suspicion. Nevertheless, rather than release appellee at this point, the officers continued to detain him in order to run a warrant check on the name he gave. This was done for the sole reason that he lacked a driver's license.1 The warrant check produced the information that there was an outstanding traffic warrant against Peter Richard Schily, and, following a subsequent arrest and search, a package of counterfeit United States Postal Money Orders was found in appellee's pocket.
Once the police officers required appellee to come to the police car, he was "seized," and therefore, the Fourth Amendment required that the length and scope of the detention be "`strictly tied to and justified by' the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878, 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...an industrial area prior to dawn with a passenger who continued to turn around monitoring the police cruiser. Id. In United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89, 90 (9th Cir.1973), two city police officers in Gardena, California observed a man cross a street, at 12:30 a.m., against a traffic ligh......
-
Brown v. State
...or developed during the stop itself, have adjudged the detention unreasonable under the Constitution. See United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89, 90-91 (9th Cir.1973) (per curiam) (concluding that action of police in stopping jaywalker, issuing a citation, and thereafter holding jaywalker fo......
-
US v. Doe
...unless he had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that a warrant check might have confirmed or dispelled. See United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir.1973) (improper under Terry to hold a jay-walker for warrant check). Therefore, any extended delay of defendant's travels wo......
-
U.S. v. Hector
...the reasonableness of a search must be evaluated in light of the executing officer's knowledge at the time. See United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89 (9th Cir.1973) (per curiam) (officer's post-seizure acquisition of knowledge that defendant was subject to outstanding bench warrant did not ......
-
TAKING SHELTER UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POLICING METHODS AT STATE-SPONSORED NATURAL DISASTER SHELTERS.
...v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1280, 1285-86 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 519-20 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89, 90-91 (9th Cir. 1973) (per curiam). But see State v. Baez, 894 So. 2d 115, 115-17 (Fla. 2004) (per (121.) 484 F.2d at 90-91. (122.) Id., at......