United States v. Emory Lee Welling

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Emory Lee Welling

758 F.2d 318

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 1985

Docket84-2051

StatusPublished

This text of 758 F.2d 318 (United States v. Emory Lee Welling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Emory Lee Welling, 758 F.2d 318 (8th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Emory Lee Welling entered conditional pleas of guilty to a three count indictment, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), reserving his right to appeal from an order denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. For reversal of that order, Welling contends that the district court erred in finding that the search of his car, following his arrest for driving while intoxicated, was for inventory purposes and permissible under South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976).

There is no factual dispute concerning Welling’s arrest by a Forest City, Arkansas police officer and the officer’s subsequent discovery of marijuana and a M-16 rifle in the trunk of Welling’s car. The controversy stems from the court’s conclusion that the search was made pursuant to the Forest City Police Department’s standard policy of inventorying the contents of a vehicle prior to impounding it.

We have carefully reviewed the record, including the transcript of the hearing held on the motion to suppress, and the briefs of the respective parties. We conclude that the district court’s decision is fully supported by the evidence and no error of law occurred. 1

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. See 8th Cir.R. 14.

1

. In view of this conclusion, we need not discuss the issue of whether Welling voluntarily consented to the search of his hotel room.

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

PER CURIAM.

Emory Lee Welling entered conditional pleas of guilty to a three count indictment, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), reserving his right to appeal from an order denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. For reversal of that order, Welling contends that the district court erred in finding that the search of his car, following his arrest for driving while intoxicated, was for inventory purposes and permissible under South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976).

There is no factual dispute concerning Welling’s arrest by a Forest City, Arkansas police officer and the officer’s subsequent discovery of marijuana and a M-16 rifle in the trunk of Welling’s car. The controversy stems from the court’s conclusion that the search was made pursuant to the Forest City Police Department’s standard policy of inventorying the contents of a vehicle prior to impounding it.

We have carefully reviewed the record, including the transcript of the hearing held on the motion to suppress, and the briefs of the respective parties. We conclude that the district court’s decision is fully supported by the evidence and no error of law occurred. 1

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. See 8th Cir.R. 14.

1

. In view of this conclusion, we need not discuss the issue of whether Welling voluntarily consented to the search of his hotel room.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

758 F.2d 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-emory-lee-welling-ca8-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack