United States v. Vaughan
| Citation | 475 F.2d 1262 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1636.,72-1636. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Marshall Lee VAUGHAN, Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Jim Merz, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Floy E. Dawson, Asst. U. S. Atty. (William R. Burkett, U. S. Atty., with him on the Brief), for appellee.
Before SETH, McWILLIAMS and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844, tried, and found guilty. He has taken this appeal, raising only the issue as to the refusal of the trial court to suppress evidence secured by a search of defendant's automobile.
The incident which gave rise to the search arose when defendant Vaughan, a civilian, approached one of the main entry gates to Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma. This is a large base with thousands of civilian employees. Although the pickup truck that he was driving had a base decal on the windshield, he was stopped by the gate guards and asked for identification. Due to the possibility that a demonstration against the Vietnam War was imminent, the Base Commander had issued orders that no visitors were to be allowed on the base.
When stopped at the gate, Vaughan stated that he was going to pick up his wife for lunch, and that she worked at the commissary. When asked for identification, he presented the gate guard with an expired Marine Corps Reserve Identification card, which the guard confiscated. Defendant was directed to park by the side of the street. The guard then called his supervisor, and when he arrived the two proceeded to search Vaughan's vehicle. No consent was requested or given. The supervisor reached under the front seat of the pickup where he found a child's coonskin cap. In the cap was a small amount of marijuana, and Vaughan was then arrested.
Prior to trial, Vaughan moved to have the marijuana suppressed, asserting that it had been obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure. The trial court denied the motion, and this is the error asserted by defendant on this appeal.
The Government's position is that a person within the restricted area of a military reservation is subject to having his person and his vehicle searched in the interest of military security. Further it asserts that submitting to search could be validly imposed as a condition to gaining access to a military reservation. Both of these positions are correct; however, the facts of the instant case do not lead to such a ready solution, and we must hold that the search here conducted was improper.
The testimony of the gate guard, William Ladd, who originally stopped defendant, is very significant. A portion is quoted:
The record demonstrates that the gate guard had made a determination that Vaughan was not going to be allowed access to the base. Also, the commanding officer had ordered there be no visitors, and thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Rogers
...base, there is even less reason to question the propriety of the search under the circumstances of this case. See United States v. Vaughan, 475 F.2d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 1973); United States v. Burrow, 396 F.Supp. 890 (D.Md.1975); United States v. Rogers,388 F.Supp. 298 (E.D.Va.1975). B. D......
-
United States v. Burrow
...271 (10th Cir. 1967); United States v. Miller, supra; Wallis v. O'Kier, 491 F.2d 1323, 1325 (10th Cir. 1974); United States v. Vaughan, 475 F.2d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 1973); United States v. Crowley, supra; United States v. Grisby, The means by which this duty may be fulfilled, however, var......
-
State v. Torres
...occurred on ... a closed military base, there is even less reason to question the propriety of the search"); United States v. Vaughan, 475 F.2d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir.1973) (stating that once the defendant entered the closed military base, "a search conducted without probable cause and withou......
-
United States v. Hitselberger
...personnel and the property under their control are subject to search.” Jenkins, 986 F.2d at 77; see also United States v. Vaughan, 475 F.2d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir.1973) (per curiam) (concluding that, given an identical sign, “a search conducted without probable cause and without consent could......
-
Special Needs' and Other Fourth Amendment Searches
...the base is denied, a search of the person who sought entry is subject to normal Fourth Amendment standards. United States v. Vaughan , 475 F.2d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 1973). While members of the military are protected by the Fourth Amendment, military personnel entering a base are also subj......
-
Special Needs' and Other Fourth Amendment Searches
...the base is denied, a search of the person who sought entry is subject to normal Fourth Amendment standards. United States v. Vaughan , 475 F.2d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 1973). While members of the military are protected by the Fourth Amendment, military personnel entering a base are also subj......
-
Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
...the base is denied, a search of the person who sought entry is subject to normal Fourth Amendment standards. United States v. Vaughan , 475 F.2d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 1973). While members of the military are protected by the Fourth Amendment, military personnel entering a base are also subj......
-
Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
...the base is denied, a search of the person who sought entry is subject to normal Fourth Amendment standards. United States v. Vaughan , 475 F.2d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 1973). While members of the military are protected by the Fourth Amendment, military personnel entering a base are also subj......