Ulysses Grant Leeks v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Ulysses Grant Leeks v. United States

356 F.2d 470, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7238

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 8, 1966

Docket20305_1

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 356 F.2d 470 (Ulysses Grant Leeks 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

Ulysses Grant Leeks v. United States, 356 F.2d 470, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7238 (9th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.

We uphold as a border search the search of Leeks’ automobile about fifteen miles north of the border point of entry of San Ysidro, California. The enterprise of officers “tailing” Leeks was continuous from the time Leeks crossed the border until he was stopped by the command of customs officers. (There was a shift in who pursued Leeks, brought about by intercommunication of officers over their radios.) Although there was a period when Leeks, as he drove, may have been momentarily out of the sight of all of the officers, there was no break in the continuity of the project of the officers following him. We deem the case governed by Hurst v. United States, 9 Cir., 344 F.2d 327; King v. United States, 9 Cir., 348 F.2d 814; and Murgia v. United States, 9 Cir., 285 F.2d 14.

In holding that the search was a border search, it necessarily follows that the seizure of the narcotics was valid.

We deem that the affidavit of bias by which appellant attempted to remove the trial judge after the process of adjudication had begun was too conclusionary in nature to require a consideration on the merits by any judge. Thus, we find no error in the judge keeping the case through judgment.

Affirmed.

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

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.

We uphold as a border search the search of Leeks’ automobile about fifteen miles north of the border point of entry of San Ysidro, California. The enterprise of officers “tailing” Leeks was continuous from the time Leeks crossed the border until he was stopped by the command of customs officers. (There was a shift in who pursued Leeks, brought about by intercommunication of officers over their radios.) Although there was a period when Leeks, as he drove, may have been momentarily out of the sight of all of the officers, there was no break in the continuity of the project of the officers following him. We deem the case governed by Hurst v. United States, 9 Cir., 344 F.2d 327; King v. United States, 9 Cir., 348 F.2d 814; and Murgia v. United States, 9 Cir., 285 F.2d 14.

In holding that the search was a border search, it necessarily follows that the seizure of the narcotics was valid.

We deem that the affidavit of bias by which appellant attempted to remove the trial judge after the process of adjudication had begun was too conclusionary in nature to require a consideration on the merits by any judge. Thus, we find no error in the judge keeping the case through judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 F.2d 470, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ulysses-grant-leeks-v-united-states-ca9-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack