Richard Allen Black v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Richard Allen Black v. United States

341 F.2d 583, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6584

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 1965

Docket19196

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 341 F.2d 583 (Richard Allen Black 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

Richard Allen Black v. United States, 341 F.2d 583, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6584 (9th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant contends that it was error to admit in evidence a transcribed and taped recording of a telephone conversation had between appellant and a special employee of the Government since there was no proof that the employee had consented to the taping and transcription. The call was placed by the employee and the taping and transcription were with his cooperation.

Appellant contends that nevertheless no legal consent was established since it appears that the special employee was himself under arrest for a narcotics violation and had co-operated following as *584 surances that the fact of co-operation would he made known to the United States Attorney’s Office. This is not sufficient to negative consent. United States ex rel. Dixon v. Pate, 330 F.2d 126 (7 Cir. 1964).

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant contends that it was error to admit in evidence a transcribed and taped recording of a telephone conversation had between appellant and a special employee of the Government since there was no proof that the employee had consented to the taping and transcription. The call was placed by the employee and the taping and transcription were with his cooperation.

Appellant contends that nevertheless no legal consent was established since it appears that the special employee was himself under arrest for a narcotics violation and had co-operated following as *584 surances that the fact of co-operation would he made known to the United States Attorney’s Office. This is not sufficient to negative consent. United States ex rel. Dixon v. Pate, 330 F.2d 126 (7 Cir. 1964).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 F.2d 583, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-allen-black-v-united-states-ca9-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack