Williams v. United States, 13369.
| Citation | 99 US App. DC 161,237 F.2d 789 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 13369.,13369. |
| Parties | Warren F. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. Yale Kamisar, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for appellant.
Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
Petition for Rehearing In Banc Denied November 27, 1956.
The arrest of appellant was illegal because without a warrant, without probable cause, and without other validating circumstances.1 The government does not seriously contend otherwise. A cigarette package containing capsules which in turn contained contraband narcotics was procured by the officers, who had appellant in custody, when he dropped the package in a corridor of the precinct station shortly after his arrest and when it seemed clear he was to be searched. The contraband capsules were admitted in evidence. Since they were procured as a result of the illegal arrest the motion for their suppression made at the trial should have been granted. In a pre-trial motion to suppress appellant had disclaimed ownership of the capsules. But when his objection to their admission was renewed and acted upon at the trial itself the unchallenged testimony of the prosecution showed that the capsules were in appellant's possession until he dropped them, thus giving him standing to object.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
1 Appellant was convicted on each of two counts of an indictment for violating provisions of the laws governing narcotics, viz., 26 U.S.C.A. § 2553(a) and 21 U.S. C.A. § 174.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Allen
...we find the arrest was made with probable cause, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. Allen relies on Williams v. United States, 237 F.2d 789 (D.C. Cir. 1956), in contending that the heroin must be excluded. That reliance is misplaced. The court in Williams excluded narcotics aba......
-
Christensen v. United States
...by the government itself." That the defendant has standing to object in such circumstances was established in Williams v. U. S., 1956, 99 U.S. App.D.C. 161, 237 F.2d 789, petition for rehearing in banc denied, see The philosophy of the Harvey decision, it seems to me, is that the exclusiona......
-
Brandon v. United States
...See Judge Bazelon's dissenting opinion in Christensen v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 35, 259 F.2d 192; and Williams v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 161, 237 F.2d 789. Having accorded appellant standing I would nevertheless overrule his objections to the evidence, because I think the s......
-
Moss v. Cox
...conduct precipitated such action. The exclusionary rule is aimed at official improprieties. Quite in point is Williams v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 161, 237 F.2d 789 (1956): The arrest of appellant was illegal because without a warrant, without probable cause, and without other validat......