United States v. Othell Campbell

395 F.2d 848, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6862
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 20, 1968
Docket11584
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 395 F.2d 848 (United States v. Othell Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Othell Campbell, 395 F.2d 848, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6862 (4th Cir. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Convicted of possession of illicit whiskey, Othell Campbell has appealed, complaining that his motion to suppress evidence gained from an unlawful search and seizure should have been granted. The search in question was the viewing by Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division agents from an adjacent cornfield of a transaction in illicit whiskey which took place in the backyard of Campbell’s home. The agents were not within the curtilage and the “open field” doctrine is applicable to their observations. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898; United States v. Shue, 4 Cir., 385 F.2d 416; McDowell v. United States, 8 Cir., 383 F.2d 599; Rosencranz v. United States, 1 Cir., 356 F.2d 310; United States v. Hassell, 6 Cir., 336 F.2d 684; United States v. Young, 4 Cir., 322 F.2d 443; United States v. Potts, 6 Cir., 297 F.2d 68; *849 Hodges v. United States, 5 Cir., 243 F.2d 281; Care v. United States, 10 Cir., 231 F.2d 22; Janney v. United States, 4 Cir., 206 F.2d 601. Nothing said in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, requires a different result.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Mendes v. Wendling
W.D. Virginia, 2022
United States v. Hatfield
333 F.3d 1189 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
State v. Grawien
367 N.W.2d 816 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1985)
United States v. Gustavo Diaz-Segovia
457 F. Supp. 260 (D. Maryland, 1978)
State v. Wert
550 S.W.2d 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1977)
United States v. French
414 F. Supp. 800 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1976)
Commonwealth v. Treftz
351 A.2d 265 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)
United States v. Claude Bishop Minton
488 F.2d 37 (Fourth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Errol B. Resnick
455 F.2d 1127 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
State v. Russo
470 S.W.2d 164 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1971)
People v. Ortega
485 P.2d 894 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1971)
Commonwealth v. Robbins
263 A.2d 761 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1970)
United States v. Watt
309 F. Supp. 329 (N.D. California, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
395 F.2d 848, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-othell-campbell-ca4-1968.