Bryant Piledge Long v. United States

387 F.2d 377
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 4, 1968
Docket24224_1
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 387 F.2d 377 (Bryant Piledge Long v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bryant Piledge Long v. United States, 387 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The defendant-appellant, Bryant Long, was convicted for unlawfully selling seven gallons of whiskey in unstamped containers, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5604 (a) (1). The United States introduced, over the defendant’s objections, evidence of conversations between Long and a government agent obtained through the use of electronic transmitting and receiving devices. A microphone strapped to the agent transmitted the conversations to other agents. Long contends that the use of electronic eavesdropping devices is unconstitutional and that evidence resulting from such devices is inadmissible.

There is no merit to Long’s contention. Lopez v. United States, 1963, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S.Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462; On Lee v. United States, 1952, 343 U.S. 747, 72 S.Ct. 967, 96 L.Ed. 1270; Goldman v. United States, 1942, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322; Olmstead v. United States, 1928, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944; and Beatty v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 181. In Silverman v. United States, 1961, 365 U.S. 505, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734, the Supreme Court explicitly pointed out that On Lee, Goldman, and Olmstead were still applicable except where “the eavesdropping was accomplished by means of an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises occupied by the petitioners”. See also Katz v. United States, 9 Cir. 1967, 369 F.2d 130, cert. granted, 386 U.S. 954, 87 S.Ct. 1021,18 L.Ed.2d 102. No physical “intrusion” or “penetration” was involved in this case. See Jones v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 419. The judgment is affirmed. 1

1

. After entry but before publication of the above opinion in this ease the Supreme Court reversed Katz v. United States, holding that the “trespass” doctrine enunciated in Olmstead and Goldman “can no longer be regarded as controlling.” 389 U.S. 347, 353, 88 S.Ct. 507, 512, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 583 (Dec. 18, 1967). Lopez and Osborn v. United States, 1967, 385 U.S. 323, 87 S.Ct. 429, 17 L.Ed.2d 394, involving tape recordings of incriminating conversation where the parties recording the conversations were agents for the government, are still viable, however. So also are On Lee, a case factually almost identical to the case before us, and Hester v. United States, 1924, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898, similar to this case but involving no electronic device. On the basis of these decisions our judgment affirming Long’s conviction must stand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. White
401 U.S. 745 (Supreme Court, 1971)
United States v. Long
304 F. Supp. 81 (M.D. Alabama, 1969)
Mortimer Norman Koran v. United States
408 F.2d 1321 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Joseph Daniel Holt v. United States
404 F.2d 914 (Tenth Circuit, 1969)
Parnell v. State
218 So. 2d 535 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Andrew J. Harris v. United States
400 F.2d 264 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)
State v. Wright
444 P.2d 676 (Washington Supreme Court, 1968)
Johnny Dancy, Jr. v. United States
390 F.2d 370 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 F.2d 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-piledge-long-v-united-states-ca5-1968.