United States v. Vigil, 71-1876.
| Decision Date | 29 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1876.,71-1876. |
| Citation | 448 F.2d 1250 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Edward VIGIL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George F. Senner, Jr., of Cavness, DeRose, Senner & Rood, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.
Richard K. Burke, U. S. Atty., Thomas N. Crowe, Asst U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HAMLEY, BROWNING, and CARTER, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was charged with violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a, smuggling marihuana. He consented to proceedings under 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5037, and was adjudged to be a delinquent and committed to the custody of the Attorney General during his minority.
On appeal appellant challenges the search which disclosed the marihuana. He further argues that the evidence presented below was insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.
On October 19, 1970, Agent Tidball of the United States Boarder Patrol was patroling the Morelos Dam area along the Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona. Substantial amounts of marihuana are smuggled into the United States from Mexico through this area.
Agent Tidball testified that he noticed a car parked near the river and four men standing by it. Upon investigation he discovered that three of the men were illegal aliens; appellant was the fourth. The aliens were taken into custody. Agent Tidball questioned appellant, then asked him to open the trunk of the car. As the trunk lock released, appellant started running toward the river, approximately 50 yards away. Agent Tidball caught him and brought him back to the car. It was then that Agent Tidball noticed six bundles of marihuana in the trunk. Customs agents were summoned and appellant was taken to a Boarder Patrol facility in Yuma.
Appellant's argument that the search was unlawful is without merit. As a general rule, the search of an automobile must be based upon probable cause, although a warrant is not required if the vehicle might be moved from the jurisdiction while judicial authorization is being sought. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 221, 88 S.Ct. 1472, 20 L.Ed.2d 538 (1968); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-154, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).
However, there is an exception to the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment applicable to "border searches." Carroll v. United States, supra, 267 U.S. at 153-154, 45...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bowen
...977, 81 S.Ct. 1946, 6 L.Ed.2d 1265 (1961), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 946, 84 S.Ct. 803, 11 L.Ed.2d 769 (1964).5 See also United States v. Vigil, 448 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Markham, 440 F.2d 1119, 1121-1123 (9th Cir. 1971). See generally Note, From Bags to Body Cavities: Th......
-
State v. Hutton
...than in an immobile structure or location. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); United States v. Vigil, 448 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir. 1971); State v. Aikins, 18 Ariz.App. 440, 503 P.2d 398 Applying this analysis to the facts in this case, it is apparent that whe......
-
U.S. v. Anderson
...See also United States v. Markham, 440 F.2d 1119, 1121--1123 (9th Cir. 1971). After the Weil decision, we held in United States v. Vigil, 448 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir. 1971), that the car searched need not have recently crossed the border 'if it is 'reasonably certain' that it contains goods or p......
-
Clark v. State
...United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711, 715 (5th Cir.1976), United States v. Tilton, 534 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir.1976) and United States v. Vigil, 448 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir.1971) holding that a "high degree of probability that a border crossing took place or that Customs officers must be 'reasonabl......