Lawrence A. Smith v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Lawrence A. Smith v. United States

386 F.2d 532, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4437

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 24, 1967

Docket21418-A

StatusPublished

This text of 386 F.2d 532 (Lawrence A. Smith 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

Lawrence A. Smith v. United States, 386 F.2d 532, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4437 (9th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends that certain evidence introduced against him was obtained by an unlawful search.

Portland, Oregon, police received a telephone call from the Seattle, Washington, office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation informing them that appellant and two others had robbed a bank in Seattle and were believed to have driven to the Portland area in a 1959 Ford carrying Washington license AKY 498. The Portland police located the automobile in a motel parking lot and determined from the manager that the occupants of the automobile were registered in a particular room. Appellant responded to their knock on the door. They arrested him and searched the room, discovering a part of the loot from the bank robbery.

We conclude that the arresting officers had “reasonable cause for believing the person arrested” had committed a felony, and appellant’s arrest without a warrant was therefore valid under Ore.Rev.Stat. § 133.310(3). The search of the motel room was incident to that arrest and hence lawful. Cf. Reed v. United States, 364 F.2d 630, 632-633 (9th Cir. 1966). See also Travis v. United States, 362 F.2d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 1966).

We have examined appellant’s other specifications of error and find them without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends that certain evidence introduced against him was obtained by an unlawful search.

Portland, Oregon, police received a telephone call from the Seattle, Washington, office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation informing them that appellant and two others had robbed a bank in Seattle and were believed to have driven to the Portland area in a 1959 Ford carrying Washington license AKY 498. The Portland police located the automobile in a motel parking lot and determined from the manager that the occupants of the automobile were registered in a particular room. Appellant responded to their knock on the door. They arrested him and searched the room, discovering a part of the loot from the bank robbery.

We conclude that the arresting officers had “reasonable cause for believing the person arrested” had committed a felony, and appellant’s arrest without a warrant was therefore valid under Ore.Rev.Stat. § 133.310(3). The search of the motel room was incident to that arrest and hence lawful. Cf. Reed v. United States, 364 F.2d 630, 632-633 (9th Cir. 1966). See also Travis v. United States, 362 F.2d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 1966).

We have examined appellant’s other specifications of error and find them without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 F.2d 532, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-a-smith-v-united-states-ca9-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack