United States v. Edward Edgar Holgerson

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Edward Edgar Holgerson

424 F.2d 1130, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9455

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1970

Docket603-69

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 424 F.2d 1130 (United States v. Edward Edgar Holgerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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. Edward Edgar Holgerson, 424 F.2d 1130, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9455 (10th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was found guilty of violating the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, and appeals from the judgment pronouncing sentence. Defendant claims that the arresting officers made an unlawful search of his car.

A Laramie, Wyoming, police officer received a radio report from his dispatcher that a person driving a certain described car had used a stolen credit card. He later saw the car stop at a filling station and the driver, defendant get out. A woman and child remained in the car. The defendant did not close the left front door when he got out of the car. The officer confronted the defendant, who failed to produce a registration for the car and gave him a false driver’s license. The officer placed the defendant under arrest and asked another officer to get the car’s serial number, which was on the door post of the open door and could be read without touching the car. An “all-points” bulletin listing the serial number developed the fact that the car had been stolen about two months before in Maine. A motion to suppress was filed on the ground that the serial number was obtained by an unlawful search. This was denied and appropriate objections were made during the trial to preserve the point.

The defendant’s arguments are answered by the fact that there was no search. When he got out of the car and left the door open, the serial number was in plain view. The finding of the trial court that the door was open is sustained by the evidence. There was no search because the officer “merely saw what was placed before him in full view.” Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, *1131 43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726. See also Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, and United States v. Self, 10 Cir., 410 F.2d 984, 986. Because there was no search, it is unnecessary to consider cases like Simpson v. United States, 10 Cir., 346 F.2d 291, on which the defendant relies.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was found guilty of violating the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312, and appeals from the judgment pronouncing sentence. Defendant claims that the arresting officers made an unlawful search of his car.

A Laramie, Wyoming, police officer received a radio report from his dispatcher that a person driving a certain described car had used a stolen credit card. He later saw the car stop at a filling station and the driver, defendant get out. A woman and child remained in the car. The defendant did not close the left front door when he got out of the car. The officer confronted the defendant, who failed to produce a registration for the car and gave him a false driver’s license. The officer placed the defendant under arrest and asked another officer to get the car’s serial number, which was on the door post of the open door and could be read without touching the car. An “all-points” bulletin listing the serial number developed the fact that the car had been stolen about two months before in Maine. A motion to suppress was filed on the ground that the serial number was obtained by an unlawful search. This was denied and appropriate objections were made during the trial to preserve the point.

The defendant’s arguments are answered by the fact that there was no search. When he got out of the car and left the door open, the serial number was in plain view. The finding of the trial court that the door was open is sustained by the evidence. There was no search because the officer “merely saw what was placed before him in full view.” Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, *1131 43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726. See also Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, and United States v. Self, 10 Cir., 410 F.2d 984, 986. Because there was no search, it is unnecessary to consider cases like Simpson v. United States, 10 Cir., 346 F.2d 291, on which the defendant relies.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 F.2d 1130, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-edward-edgar-holgerson-ca10-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack