United States v. Ed Sullivan, Jr., and Kim Sullivan
This text of 488 F.2d 138 (United States v. Ed Sullivan, Jr., and Kim Sullivan) 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.
Opinion
Defendants were convicted for knowingly and intentionally conspiring to import marijuana from Mexico into the United States. 21 U.S.C.A. § 963. On appeal, they challenge the legality of a search which produced the incriminating marijuana. Defendants, 'however, lack standing to object to the evidence as the product of an illegal search.
[T]here is no standing to contest a search and seizure where, as here, the defendants: (a) were not on the premises at the time of the contested search and seizure; (b) alleged no proprietary or possessory interest in the premises; and (c) were not charged with an offense that includes, as an essential element of the offense charged, possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search and seizure.
Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 229, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973).
The search in this case was of a van which the defendants neither owned nor possessed at the time of the search. *139 They likewise neither owned nor possessed the 322 pounds of marijuana discovered therein.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
488 F.2d 138, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ed-sullivan-jr-and-kim-sullivan-ca5-1973.