Jewel Polk v. United States

314 F.2d 837, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5903
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 12, 1963
Docket17819
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 314 F.2d 837 (Jewel Polk v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jewel Polk v. United States, 314 F.2d 837, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5903 (9th Cir. 1963).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following a hearing held on remand pursuant to the mandate of this Court (Polk v. United States, 291 F.2d 230, 232 (1961)), the District Court found as follows: “The undisputed evidence now in the record * * * shows that insofar as defendant was concerned the rear yard and staircase were nothing more than a means of access to the back door of his flat.” And further: “When the po *838 lice officers went to defendant’s residence on the night of his arrest, they did so for the perfectly proper purpose of seeking to obtain information regarding the missing marked currency. After they had rapped and shouted at the front door without response, two officers attempted to carry out their mission by going to the rear door. They did so by proceeding through a passageway, pushing past a gate having no latch and standing ajar, and climbing an outsi.de staircase, all of which were for the joint use of the residents of both flats in the house, and which, to all appearances, were open for the use of tradesmen and other persons having legitimate business with any of the residents.”

On the basis of the facts thus found, the judgment is affirmed. Compare Ellison v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 206 F.2d 476, 478 (1953), with Hobson v. United States, 226 F.2d 890, 894 (8th Cir., 1955).

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

Related

United States v. Ellis
121 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. California, 2015)
United States v. Concepcion
742 F. Supp. 503 (N.D. Illinois, 1990)
United States v. Mose Holland
755 F.2d 253 (Second Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Williams
565 F. Supp. 353 (N.D. Illinois, 1983)
United States v. Hipolito Cruz Pagan
537 F.2d 554 (First Circuit, 1976)
State v. Crea
233 N.W.2d 736 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1975)
Robert Fixel v. Louie L. Wainwright
492 F.2d 480 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
Merica v. State
488 P.2d 1161 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1971)
Commonwealth v. Hughes
280 A.2d 556 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Louis D. Ponce v. Walter E. Craven, Warden
409 F.2d 621 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)
People v. Seals
263 Cal. App. 2d 575 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
State v. Plummer
241 A.2d 198 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1967)
United States ex rel. Carafas v. LaVallee
275 F. Supp. 91 (N.D. New York, 1966)
People v. Willard
238 Cal. App. 2d 292 (California Court of Appeal, 1965)
People v. King
234 Cal. App. 2d 423 (California Court of Appeal, 1965)
United States v. St. Clair
240 F. Supp. 338 (S.D. New York, 1965)
United States v. Lewis
227 F. Supp. 433 (S.D. New York, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
314 F.2d 837, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewel-polk-v-united-states-ca9-1963.