Clarence L. Butler v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Clarence L. Butler v. United States

275 F.2d 889

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 17, 1960

Docket15190_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 F.2d 889 (Clarence L. Butler v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clarence L. Butler v. United States, 275 F.2d 889 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Butler was indicted and convicted for failure to pay a tax on marihuana. His contention upon this appeal is that evidence seized by police officers in his apartment should have been suppressed. A hearing was held in the District Court upon the motion to suppress. Appellant says that it was not established that he refused admittance to the officers before they forcibly entered the apartment. 1 The precise dispute is whether appellant attempted to shut the door after the officers had identified themselves and announced that they had a search warrant. The officers testified that he attempted to shut the door. Appellant did not testify. He now claims that he may have been merely attempting to release a chain lock on the door. The District Court, both upon the motion to suppress and at the trial, accepted the testimony of the officers. We find no reason to disturb that conclusion.

Affirmed.

1

. 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (1958).

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Butler was indicted and convicted for failure to pay a tax on marihuana. His contention upon this appeal is that evidence seized by police officers in his apartment should have been suppressed. A hearing was held in the District Court upon the motion to suppress. Appellant says that it was not established that he refused admittance to the officers before they forcibly entered the apartment. 1 The precise dispute is whether appellant attempted to shut the door after the officers had identified themselves and announced that they had a search warrant. The officers testified that he attempted to shut the door. Appellant did not testify. He now claims that he may have been merely attempting to release a chain lock on the door. The District Court, both upon the motion to suppress and at the trial, accepted the testimony of the officers. We find no reason to disturb that conclusion.

Affirmed.

1

. 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (1958).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 F.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-l-butler-v-united-states-cadc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack