Manuel Leyva Lopez v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Manuel Leyva Lopez v. United States

409 F.2d 1351, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12887

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 1969

Docket22570_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 409 F.2d 1351 (Manuel Leyva Lopez 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

Manuel Leyva Lopez v. United States, 409 F.2d 1351, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12887 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of illegal importation and sale of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 and 26 U.S.C. § 4705 (a). The principal evidence against him was the testimony of an agent of the *1352 Federal Bureau of Narcotics who by means of a “non-magnetic, non-electronic extension device” attached to a telephone receiver at the Bureau headquarters overheard a conversation between appellant and an informer during which arrangements were made to purchase the heroin. Appellant contends this evidence was secured in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, relying exclusively upon Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). The Supreme Court has held, however, “that Katz is to be applied only to cases in which the prosecution seeks to introduce the fruits of electronic surveillance conducted after December 18, 1967.” Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969). Since the eavesdropping of which appellant complains occurred prior to that date, Katz is not available to appellant, even if its principles would otherwise be applicable to the facts presented here.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of illegal importation and sale of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 174 and 26 U.S.C. § 4705 (a). The principal evidence against him was the testimony of an agent of the *1352 Federal Bureau of Narcotics who by means of a “non-magnetic, non-electronic extension device” attached to a telephone receiver at the Bureau headquarters overheard a conversation between appellant and an informer during which arrangements were made to purchase the heroin. Appellant contends this evidence was secured in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, relying exclusively upon Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). The Supreme Court has held, however, “that Katz is to be applied only to cases in which the prosecution seeks to introduce the fruits of electronic surveillance conducted after December 18, 1967.” Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969). Since the eavesdropping of which appellant complains occurred prior to that date, Katz is not available to appellant, even if its principles would otherwise be applicable to the facts presented here.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 F.2d 1351, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manuel-leyva-lopez-v-united-states-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack