Robert Brett and Mary Garcia Cruz v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Robert Brett and Mary Garcia Cruz v. United States

377 F.2d 520, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6467

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1967

Docket23868

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 377 F.2d 520 (Robert Brett and Mary Garcia Cruz 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

Robert Brett and Mary Garcia Cruz v. United States, 377 F.2d 520, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6467 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were found guilty by the court below, sitting without a jury, of facilitation of the transportation and concealment of heroin in violation of 21 U.S. C.A. § 174, and the purchase of the same heroin not in or from the original stamped package, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704.

The sole contention of appellants is that the court erred in denying their motion to suppress as evidence the heroin and certain other property seized during what appellants claim was an illegal search. We pretermit a discussion of whether, considering the relevant facts and circumstances, there was a border search (19 U.S.C.A. §§ 482, 1581, 1582); *521 for we agree with the trial court that Galanos, the arresting officer, had before him facts and circumstances within his knowledge sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense had been or was being committed; and thus there was probable cause. Carroll v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543; Brinegar v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879; Vaccaro v. United States, 5 Cir. 1961, 296 F.2d 500, cert. denied 369 U.S. 890, 82 S.Ct. 1164, 8 L.Ed.2d 289 (1962); Flores v. United States, 5 Cir. 1956, 234 F.2d 604.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were found guilty by the court below, sitting without a jury, of facilitation of the transportation and concealment of heroin in violation of 21 U.S. C.A. § 174, and the purchase of the same heroin not in or from the original stamped package, in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704.

The sole contention of appellants is that the court erred in denying their motion to suppress as evidence the heroin and certain other property seized during what appellants claim was an illegal search. We pretermit a discussion of whether, considering the relevant facts and circumstances, there was a border search (19 U.S.C.A. §§ 482, 1581, 1582); *521 for we agree with the trial court that Galanos, the arresting officer, had before him facts and circumstances within his knowledge sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense had been or was being committed; and thus there was probable cause. Carroll v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543; Brinegar v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879; Vaccaro v. United States, 5 Cir. 1961, 296 F.2d 500, cert. denied 369 U.S. 890, 82 S.Ct. 1164, 8 L.Ed.2d 289 (1962); Flores v. United States, 5 Cir. 1956, 234 F.2d 604.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 F.2d 520, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-brett-and-mary-garcia-cruz-v-united-states-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack