Guillermo Barrera v. United States

276 F.2d 654, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4897
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 11, 1960
Docket18058_1
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 276 F.2d 654 (Guillermo Barrera 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
Guillermo Barrera v. United States, 276 F.2d 654, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4897 (5th Cir. 1960).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal by Guillermo Barrera is from a conviction of two separate violations of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, as amended, by knowingly and fraudulently importing and concealing and facilitating the concealing of narcotic drugs. The sole point upon which he relies is his contention that his constitutional rights were violated by the search for and seizure of the narcotics.

Appellant was apprehended as he entered the United States at the Juarez International Bridge by customs agents who were informed that it was his purpose to import heroin from Mexico to the United States. After his apprehension appellant was seen to swallow an envelope. After he was subdued when he resisted detention, he was taken to a hospital where he was administered an emetic, which resulted in the regurgitation of the heroin, which was seized and held as evidence against him. The court denied his motion to suppress the evidence and found the appellant guilty upon the same evidence offered in connection ■with the motion to suppress, the parties having stipulated that this course be followed.

The facts presented to the court below support its denial of the motion to suppress, bringing the case squarely under our holdings in King v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 754, and Ramirez v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 385, and distinguishing it from the holding of the Supreme Court in Rochin v. California, 1952, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183. Upon the authority of these two decisions by this Court 1 the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. And cf. Haerr v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 533, and Blackford v. United States, 9 Cir., 1957, 247 F.2d 745, certiorari denied 1958, 356 U.S. 914, 78 S.Ct. 672, 2 L.Ed.2d 586.

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

Related

United States v. Maria Vega-Barvo
729 F.2d 1341 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
United States v. John J. Brennan
538 F.2d 711 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
United States v. Lawrence Edward Hart
506 F.2d 887 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)
United States v. Richard McDaniel
463 F.2d 129 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
People v. Jones
20 Cal. App. 3d 201 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
Audry Mack Lane v. United States
321 F.2d 573 (Fifth Circuit, 1963)
People v. Tahtinen
210 Cal. App. 2d 755 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
David James Mansfield v. United States
308 F.2d 221 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)
Vasquez v. Superior Court
199 Cal. App. 2d 61 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Gilbert C. Rodriguez v. United States
292 F.2d 709 (Fifth Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 F.2d 654, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guillermo-barrera-v-united-states-ca5-1960.