United States v. Charles McGill John Hartsel, Patrick Murphy, A/K/A James Murphey and Arthur Desroches

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Charles McGill John Hartsel, Patrick Murphy, A/K/A James Murphey and Arthur Desroches

741 F.2d 699, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19053

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 30, 1984

Docket82-3736

StatusPublished

This text of 741 F.2d 699 (United States v. Charles McGill John Hartsel, Patrick Murphy, A/K/A James Murphey and Arthur Desroches) 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

United States v. Charles McGill John Hartsel, Patrick Murphy, A/K/A James Murphey and Arthur Desroches, 741 F.2d 699, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19053 (5th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

Before TATE, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We find merit to McGill’s argument on application for rehearing that the following statement in our opinion at 736 F.2d 223, 228 represents an erroneous conclusion of law: “Even if the arrest was illegal, McGill voluntarily signed a form consenting to the search. Evidence obtained from an informed and voluntary consent to search is admissible despite an illegal arrest.” (citing cases)

The above statement is not essential to the opinion and is deleted.

Except as noted above, the petitions for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause are denied.

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