United States v. Joseph Andrew Fentress

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Joseph Andrew Fentress

452 F.2d 609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 1972

Docket71-2484

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 452 F.2d 609 (United States v. Joseph Andrew Fentress) 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. Joseph Andrew Fentress, 452 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was indicted, tried by the court and convicted of violating 18 U.S. C. § 2113(a), (d) [bank robbery with a dangerous weapon]. He appeals. We affirm.

Although stated in two parts, appellant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence which was seized by police officers. The contention is without merit. Certain of the seized property was observed by an officer in plain view through an open doorway. The door was not opened by an officer. This evidence was admissible. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). The remainder of the evidence was discovered after appellant’s joint tenant consented to an apartment search. It is well established that such a consent is valid. United States v. Cataldo, 433 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 977, 91 S.Ct. 1200, 28 L.Ed.2d 326, rehearing denied 402 U.S. 934, 91 S.Ct. 1523, 28 L.Ed.2d 869 (1971); Wright v. United States, 389 F.2d 996 (8th Cir. 1968); Burge v. United States, 342 F.2d 408, 413-414 *610 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 829, 86 S.Ct. 63, 15 L.Ed.2d 72 (1965), and Teasley v. United States, 292 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1961).

We need not reach the issue of appellant’s standing to object to the introduction of the challenged evidence.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was indicted, tried by the court and convicted of violating 18 U.S. C. § 2113(a), (d) [bank robbery with a dangerous weapon]. He appeals. We affirm.

Although stated in two parts, appellant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence which was seized by police officers. The contention is without merit. Certain of the seized property was observed by an officer in plain view through an open doorway. The door was not opened by an officer. This evidence was admissible. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). The remainder of the evidence was discovered after appellant’s joint tenant consented to an apartment search. It is well established that such a consent is valid. United States v. Cataldo, 433 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 977, 91 S.Ct. 1200, 28 L.Ed.2d 326, rehearing denied 402 U.S. 934, 91 S.Ct. 1523, 28 L.Ed.2d 869 (1971); Wright v. United States, 389 F.2d 996 (8th Cir. 1968); Burge v. United States, 342 F.2d 408, 413-414 *610 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 829, 86 S.Ct. 63, 15 L.Ed.2d 72 (1965), and Teasley v. United States, 292 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1961).

We need not reach the issue of appellant’s standing to object to the introduction of the challenged evidence.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 F.2d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joseph-andrew-fentress-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack