United States v. Lester Raymond Barnett

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Lester Raymond Barnett

423 F.2d 694, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10130

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 1970

Docket24133_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 423 F.2d 694 (United States v. Lester Raymond Barnett) 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. Lester Raymond Barnett, 423 F.2d 694, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10130 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On his appeal from his two convictions for bank robbery, Lester R. Barnett contends that:

(1) The government failed to establish that his warrantless arrest was based upon probable cause.

(2) The warrantless seizure of marked money from a third person was beyond the scope of an incidental search.

(3) Identification testimony should have been stricken as the product of an illegal line-up.

Appellant’s first contention is belied by the arresting officer’s affidavit, the only evidence introduced on the motion to suppress. The officer had a physical description of the robber, and knew his name and address from the license plate on the getaway car. 1 Probable cause to arrest existed when appellant, who matched the physical description, approached the known address and identified himself as Lester Barnett. Hollins v. United States, 338 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir. 1964); People v. Hillery, 65 Cal.2d 795, 803, 56 Cal.Rptr. 280, 423 P.2d 208, 213 (1967). Appellant declined the opportunity to cross-examine the arresting officer.

Appellant’s second contention, that evidence was illegally seized by an FBI agent in a furniture store where appellant had spent part of the bait money, is without merit. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969).

Appellant’s final contention, that the identification testimony should have *695 been stricken, is not well taken because the pre-trial confrontations occurred prior to United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 128, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and there was no evidence that the lineups were “unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification * * *." Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 296, 301-302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).

Affirmed.

1

. The car was registered in appellant’s wife’s name. However, the arresting officers learned from the landlady that appellant was living in the apartment.

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

PER CURIAM.

On his appeal from his two convictions for bank robbery, Lester R. Barnett contends that:

(1) The government failed to establish that his warrantless arrest was based upon probable cause.

(2) The warrantless seizure of marked money from a third person was beyond the scope of an incidental search.

(3) Identification testimony should have been stricken as the product of an illegal line-up.

Appellant’s first contention is belied by the arresting officer’s affidavit, the only evidence introduced on the motion to suppress. The officer had a physical description of the robber, and knew his name and address from the license plate on the getaway car. 1 Probable cause to arrest existed when appellant, who matched the physical description, approached the known address and identified himself as Lester Barnett. Hollins v. United States, 338 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir. 1964); People v. Hillery, 65 Cal.2d 795, 803, 56 Cal.Rptr. 280, 423 P.2d 208, 213 (1967). Appellant declined the opportunity to cross-examine the arresting officer.

Appellant’s second contention, that evidence was illegally seized by an FBI agent in a furniture store where appellant had spent part of the bait money, is without merit. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969).

Appellant’s final contention, that the identification testimony should have *695 been stricken, is not well taken because the pre-trial confrontations occurred prior to United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 128, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and there was no evidence that the lineups were “unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification * * *." Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 296, 301-302, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967).

Affirmed.

1

. The car was registered in appellant’s wife’s name. However, the arresting officers learned from the landlady that appellant was living in the apartment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 F.2d 694, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lester-raymond-barnett-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack