United States v. Owens, 72-2567.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-2567.,72-2567. |
| Citation | 475 F.2d 759 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Leroy OWENS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John B. McAdams, Dallas, Tex., court appointed, for defendant-appellant.
William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., Joel D. Conant, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Ronald F. Ederer, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WISDOM, GEWIN and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.
The defendant, Owens, appeals from his non-jury conviction for possession of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).
There is no reason to explore the dimensions of "probable cause" in airport arrests and searches. Here Owens voluntarily agreed to accompany Customs Security Officer Harris to the office of Customs Patrol Officer Castro. Apparently Owens panicked, knocked down Castro, put a cellophane package in his mouth, and began to run away. At this point there was probable cause to arrest Owens and remove the package from his mouth. It was heroin.
Owens cannot complain that his rights were violated by his being taken to a hospital where a stomach pump was used to extract heroin. At the time he appeared to be unconscious or semi-conscious and the officers acted in good faith to prevent further harm to him. This case bears no resemblance to Rochin v. California, 1952, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183.
We hold, therefore, that the district court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. See Rener v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1971, 447 F.2d 20.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Franklin
...1356 (E.D.Wis.1972) (possession of 26 grams of heroin, standing alone, insufficient evidence of intent to distribute), aff'd, 475 F.2d 759 (5th Cir.1973). Admittedly, courts have sustained the inference of intent to distribute in cases involving quantities of drugs comparable to the amount ......
-
Spotsville v. Miller
...of thepacket in his mouth for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used in a subsequent criminal trial. See United States v. Owens, 475 F.2d 759, 760 (5th Cir. 1973) (finding force stomach pumping constitutional to respond to medical need and not to gather evidence) . The record shows th......
-
United States v. Winstanley
...Amendment protections go in the airport search context, they do not embrace the defendant in this case. See also United States v. Owens, 475 F. 2d 759 (5th Cir., 1973). But cf. United States v. Valen, 348 F.Supp. 1163 (M.D. E. The Defendant's Admissions in the Airport Office. The evidence a......
-
U.S.A. v. E. Husband
...search in circumstances "where the delay necessary to obtain a warrant . . . threatens the defendant's life."); United States v. Owens, 475 F.2d 759, 760 (5th Cir. 1973) (finding a search justified where "the officers acted in good faith to prevent further harm to [the defendant]"). While w......