United States v. Wagner
| Decision Date | 02 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1684.,73-1684. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee WAGNER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
James L. Treece, U. S. Atty., Pepe J. Mendez, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Donald L. Lozow and Gary Lozow, Epstein, Lozow & Preblud, Denver, Colo, for defendant-appellant.
Before Mr. Justice CLARK,* and HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, Robert Lee Wagner, stands convicted by a jury of being in receipt of a stolen motor vehicle which was moving in interstate commerce, knowing the same to have been stolen, 18 U.S.C. § 2313. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, suspended, save for a sixty-day work release program. Wagner claims that the District Court erred in not suppressing (1) evidence of the visual observation of the vehicle identification number (VIN) of his car by a Government agent; (2) evidence discovered by a Government agent pursuant to an alleged consent search of Wagner's car; (3) a statement of Wagner to a Government agent after such search; and the refusal of the court to grant a mistrial because of the Government prosecutor's reference in his argument to the jury to the "testimony" of Wagner when in fact he had not taken the stand. We find no merit in any of the points and, therefore, affirm.
1. Special Agent William O. Leach of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had received notice that some motor vehicle titles had been stolen in Ohio. Leach asked the Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles to notify him if any of the titles showed up. On January 29, 1973, Leach was advised that a title listed to a Frank Drummond, 556 Monroe Street, in Denver, had been stolen. Leach determined, however, that address to be listed to a Mrs. L. Wagner and that, after processing, the title was to be mailed to 6748-B East Cedar Drive, Denver, Colorado. Wagner lived at this address. Leach went to the apartment complex and found a car fitting the description on the vehicle title in a carport. Finding no one home, Leach made an exterior visual inspection of the car and observed through the windshield the VIN on the dashboard. It appeared to him that the rivets holding it in place had been tampered with. The next day, accompanied by a Northglenn police officer, Leach returned to Wagner's apartment, identified himself to Wagner and asked him if he owned the car. Upon receiving an affirmative reply, Leach then questioned Wagner about the car without giving him the Miranda warning. Leach advised Wagner that he had reason to believe that the car was a stolen one and Wagner stated how he had come into possession of the car. Wagner was also told that he was not a suspect and that probably no prosecution would follow because of the prevailing policy of the United States Attorney. In addition, the police officer advised Wagner that if he changed his story, he would be given immunity from prosecution. Upon the request of Leach, Wagner gave him permission for the car to be examined and gave Leach the keys to the car. On searching the car, Leach pulled the back seat up and removed a shipping document which had a VIN on it. He then checked the motor block VIN and the VIN plate on the front dashboard. The numbers did not match. While Wagner sat in Leach's car, the latter contacted the National Crime Information Center and determined that the car was stolen. Leach then returned the rear seat to Wagner's car, locked it and gave the keys to Wagner. He then asked Wagner if he would return to the latter's house to discuss the matter. Before opening up the discussion, Leach gave Wagner the Miranda warnings and thereafter an elaborate, detailed account of the purchase of the car was related by Wagner. The first conversation was suppressed by the District Court since no warning had preceded it. The second conversation was admitted, the court finding that the Miranda warning given Wagner before the second conversation was in no wise tainted by the previous failure to give the warning before the first conversation.
The problem as to the closing argument came about when the prosecutor was discussing the testimony of Leach concerning the statements made to him by Wagner in the second conversation. The prosecutor related that Leach testified that Wagner in his statement to Leach "did not know . . . the name of the seller of the car; how to contact him; the name on the title would be Drummond's name; never recontacted the seller." The prosecutor continued:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Hason
...of privacy in the VIN in these circumstances. Commonwealth v. Dolan, 352 Mass. 432, 433, 225 N.E.2d 910 (1967). United States v. Wagner, 497 F.2d 249, 252 (10th Cir. 1974). 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 2.5(d), at 357-358 (1978). See Commonwealth v. Baldwin, --- Mass.App. ---, ---, Mass......
-
U.S. v. Herring
...through windows and doors of automobiles. See United States v. Cheatwood, 575 F.2d 821 at 824-25 (10th Cir. 1978); United States v. Wagner, 497 F.2d 249, 252 (10th Cir. 1974); United States v. McDaniel, 550 F.2d 214, 218 (5th Cir. 1977). The odor of marijuana provided an additional basis fo......
-
Seminole Asphalt Refining, Inc. v. NLRB
... ... NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Cross Petitioner ... No. 73-3676 ... United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit ... July 18, 1974.497 F.2d 248 Warner S ... ...
-
U.S. v. Arredondo-Hernandez
...compartment was not even a search and therefore, there is no need even to invoke the Plain View Doctrine. See, United States v. Wagner, 497 F.2d 249 (9th Cir. 1974). In Wagner, a patrolman made an exterior or visual inspection of a car and noticed, by looking through the windshield, that th......