United States v. Serrano
| Decision Date | 16 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | Docket 27043.,No. 341,341 |
| Citation | 317 F.2d 356 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Otilio SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Richard S. Harrell, New York City, for appellant.
Andrew T. McEvoy, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for Southern District of New York, Arnold N. Enker, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before CLARK, SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
In this appeal from a conviction for violation of the narcotics laws, 21 U.S.C. §§ 173 and 174, appellant claims that it was error to receive in evidence certain narcotics which, he alleges, were illegally seized as an incident of an unlawful arrest of the severed co-defendant Gonzales. We find it unnecessary to decide whether the arrest of Gonzales was unlawful. Since the narcotics were not seized in the course of a search of appellant's person or premises, the seizure invaded no rights of Serrano which would entitle him to object to their introduction in evidence. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 492, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); United States v. Lee Wan Nam, 274 F.2d 863 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 803, 80 S.Ct. 1236, 4 L.Ed.2d 1147 (1960).
Appellant urges that because Gonzales was a co-defendant, McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948) requires us to reverse. But in McDonald, a defendant with proper standing to do so moved for suppression and for return of the evidence illegally seized. Had the motion been granted (as the Supreme Court held that it should have been), the evidence would not have been available for use against any of the defendants. In the present case no one who had standing to do so moved for suppression of the evidence. Therefore the evidence was properly admitted.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Reincke
...an unreasonable search of that car. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); United States v. Serrano, 317 F.2d 356 (2 Cir. 1963); Eberhart v. United States, 262 F.2d 421 (9 Cir. 1958); Shurman v. United States, 219 F.2d 282 (5 Cir. 1955), cert. denied 34......
-
United States v. Bozza
...United States v. Lee Wan Nam, 274 F.2d 863 (2 Cir.) cert. denied, 363 U.S. 803, 80 S.Ct. 1236, 4 L.Ed.2d 1147 (1960); United States v. Serrano, 317 F.2d 356 (2 Cir. 1963); Staples v. United States, 320 F.2d 817, 820-821 (5 Cir. 1963); United States v. Grosso, 358 F.2d 154, 161 (3 Cir. 1966)......
-
Simpson v. United States
...the property seized was taken from a stolen automobile to which the defendants had no title or legal right to possession. United States v. Serrano, 2 Cir., 317 F.2d 356; Anno. 78 A.L.R.2d 246, § 8; Anno. 50 A.L.R.2d 531, § 10; Jones v. United States, supra, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.E......
-
United States v. Graham, 17508
...derivative or secondary in the sense that they depend upon a timely objection by the party with standing. See also, United States v. Serrano, 317 F.2d 356 (2d Cir. 1963). It has been suggested that "the Supreme Court may itself have had later doubts as to the scope of McDonald * * *." Rosen......