Scotti v. United States

193 F.2d 644
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 25, 1952
Docket13520_1
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 193 F.2d 644 (Scotti 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
Scotti v. United States, 193 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1952).

Opinion

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

The appellant was charged with the unlawful acquisition of marihuana in violation of Section 2593(a), Title 26 of the United States Code. He waived a trial by jury, and moved to suppress the evidence obtained by officers of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas. The court below first thought that the defendant had consented to the search, but finally concluded that the search, though not voluntary, was made by state officers, acting solely as agents of the state and not in cooperation with federal officers. The court further found that there was no showing that federal officers had any prior knowledge of this arrest or seizure, or any understanding or agreement with reference to the same; and no showing that there was any irregularity in any other arrest or seizure.

Conceding, without deciding, that this search was invalid under federal1 law, we find no merit in this appeal, because the city officers, in making the search, were acting solely under state law. Texas laws prohibit the traffic in marihuana, the viola^ tion of which is a felony, and the minimum penalty for which is two years imprisonment. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. The pertinent authorities, with an able analysis of them, are contained in the opinion of the learned district judge, 102 F.Supp. 747.

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Evans
179 F. Supp. 834 (D. Maryland, 1960)
Charlie West v. United States
259 F.2d 868 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)
William Condon Graham v. United States
257 F.2d 724 (Sixth Circuit, 1958)
United States v. Salvatore Benanti
244 F.2d 389 (Second Circuit, 1957)
United States v. One 1951 Cadillac Coupe
139 F. Supp. 475 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1956)
Billy Joe Helton v. United States
221 F.2d 338 (Fifth Circuit, 1955)
Willie A. Crawford v. United States
219 F.2d 207 (Fifth Circuit, 1955)
Nathan Shurman and Louis Chebatt v. United States
219 F.2d 282 (Fifth Circuit, 1955)
Burford v. United States
214 F.2d 124 (Fifth Circuit, 1954)
United States v. Stirsman
212 F.2d 900 (Seventh Circuit, 1954)
Fredericks v. United States
208 F.2d 712 (Fifth Circuit, 1954)
United States v. Haywood
208 F.2d 156 (Seventh Circuit, 1953)
United States v. One 1948 Cadillac Convertible Coupe
115 F. Supp. 723 (D. New Jersey, 1953)
Serio v. United States
203 F.2d 576 (Fifth Circuit, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 F.2d 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scotti-v-united-states-ca5-1952.