Robert F. Hinton v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Robert F. Hinton v. United States

262 F.2d 36

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 1959

Docket14455

StatusPublished

This text of 262 F.2d 36 (Robert F. Hinton v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert F. Hinton v. United States, 262 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a narcotics case. 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) (Supp. V, 1958); 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 (Supp. V, 1958). Appellant urges that his conviction should be set aside because he was arrested without probable cause, and hence the narcotics taken from him by the police at the time of arrest should have been suppressed as evidence illegally taken. We cannot agree, as it seems to us that the information known to the police was sufficient to justify appellant’s apprehension. We reach this conclusion on the basis of our own reading of the record, rather than on the District Court’s findings. We place no reliance, for example, on the circumstance that no cigarettes were found on appellant’s person at the time of his arrest although his story was that he had gone to purchase cigarettes just prior to being arrested. A post-arrest happening of this sort is not evidence of probable cause.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a narcotics case. 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) (Supp. V, 1958); 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 (Supp. V, 1958). Appellant urges that his conviction should be set aside because he was arrested without probable cause, and hence the narcotics taken from him by the police at the time of arrest should have been suppressed as evidence illegally taken. We cannot agree, as it seems to us that the information known to the police was sufficient to justify appellant’s apprehension. We reach this conclusion on the basis of our own reading of the record, rather than on the District Court’s findings. We place no reliance, for example, on the circumstance that no cigarettes were found on appellant’s person at the time of his arrest although his story was that he had gone to purchase cigarettes just prior to being arrested. A post-arrest happening of this sort is not evidence of probable cause.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F.2d 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-f-hinton-v-united-states-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack