United States v. George Washington Durham

Ninth Circuit

United States v. George Washington Durham

419 F.2d 392

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 1969

Docket24572

StatusPublished

This text of 419 F.2d 392 (United States v. George Washington Durham) 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

United States v. George Washington Durham, 419 F.2d 392 (9th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was retried following the reversal reported in Durham v. United States, 403 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1968), and was again convicted. His sole contention on this appeal is that the discovery of the wallet on May 7 was the fruit of an unlawful search conducted two days earlier. There is nothing in the present record, however, to change our conclusion on the prior appeal that “[i]f the unlawful search or questioning of appellant [on May 5] contributed in any degree to the ultimate seizure of his wallet, its role must be considered de minimis.” Id. at 196.

Defendant points out that, but for the negligence of the government agents, the wallet would have been found in the unlawful May 5 search, and would have been subject to suppression. He argues that to admit the wallet in evidence therefore enables the government to take advantage of its “own wrong” (Silver-thorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)), namely, its failure to conduct the unlawful search of May 5 effectively.

The contention is without merit. The “wrong” to which Justice Holmes referred in Silverthorne was a search which violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The exclusionary rule is not applicable to the wallet because it was not discovered as a result of such a violation.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was retried following the reversal reported in Durham v. United States, 403 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1968), and was again convicted. His sole contention on this appeal is that the discovery of the wallet on May 7 was the fruit of an unlawful search conducted two days earlier. There is nothing in the present record, however, to change our conclusion on the prior appeal that “[i]f the unlawful search or questioning of appellant [on May 5] contributed in any degree to the ultimate seizure of his wallet, its role must be considered de minimis.” Id. at 196.

Defendant points out that, but for the negligence of the government agents, the wallet would have been found in the unlawful May 5 search, and would have been subject to suppression. He argues that to admit the wallet in evidence therefore enables the government to take advantage of its “own wrong” (Silver-thorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)), namely, its failure to conduct the unlawful search of May 5 effectively.

The contention is without merit. The “wrong” to which Justice Holmes referred in Silverthorne was a search which violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The exclusionary rule is not applicable to the wallet because it was not discovered as a result of such a violation.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 F.2d 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-george-washington-durham-ca9-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack