United States v. Jimmie Wayne Jeffers

573 F.2d 1074
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 16, 1978
Docket77-3141
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 573 F.2d 1074 (United States v. Jimmie Wayne Jeffers) 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. Jimmie Wayne Jeffers, 573 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals his conviction for receipt of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(h)(1) & 924(a). We affirm.

Appellant claims that evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his residence should be suppressed because obtained in violation of his fourth amendment rights. The search was made pursuant to a condition in appellant’s probation which provided that:

You shall submit person and property to search and seizure at any time of the day or night when so requested by a probation officer with or without a warrant and with or without probable cause.

We hold that this condition is overly broad in its scope and not in keeping with the purposes intended to be served by the Federal Probation Act. See United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259, 265 (9th Cir. 1975).

Despite the fact that the authority granted in the probation condition is overly broad this circuit has held that, where such authority is narrowly and properly exercised, the search will be upheld. See United States v. Gordon, 540 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1976). Since the probation officer here had reason to believe that appellant war violating his probation, this search which took place at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner was proper.

The presence of police during the search by the probation officers did not convert the search into a police search violating the fourth amendment. Only after some ten minutes of search of the house by the probation officers alone, did they ask the sheriff’s deputies to enter and help tag the many items of stolen property discovered there. A probation, officer may enlist the aid of police, and police may be present to expedite a search. See Gordon, 540 F.2d at 453; Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 247 (9th Cir. 1975).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Anderson v. Peterson, et al.
2003 DNH 226 (D. New Hampshire, 2003)
State v. Zeta Chi Fraternity
696 A.2d 530 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1997)
United States v. Barry v. Preston
87 F.3d 1324 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Rivera v. State
667 N.E.2d 764 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1996)
United States v. James William Giannetta
909 F.2d 571 (First Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Giannetta
711 F. Supp. 1144 (D. Maine, 1989)
Allen v. Passaic Cty.
530 A.2d 371 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1986)
Quigg v. France
502 F. Supp. 516 (D. Montana, 1980)
State v. Gardner
619 P.2d 847 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1980)
State v. Fogarty
610 P.2d 140 (Montana Supreme Court, 1980)
State v. Bollinger
405 A.2d 432 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
573 F.2d 1074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jimmie-wayne-jeffers-ca9-1978.