United States v. Otto Hughes Linnear

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Otto Hughes Linnear

464 F.2d 355, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8417

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 1972

Docket71-3081

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 464 F.2d 355 (United States v. Otto Hughes Linnear) 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. Otto Hughes Linnear, 464 F.2d 355, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8417 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of five counterfeit $100 Federal -Reserve notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. The counterfeit was found in defendant’s possession during a search by the Los Angeles police following his arrest without a warrant. He was arrested while in the company of one Freeman. Information and events preceding the arrest indicated that Freeman had engaged in an illegal cocaine transaction inside a building some distance away from the point of arrest, while defendant and a Miss Tibbs waited outside in an automobile. The latter subsequently drove Freeman and defendant to a liquor store, which defendant and Freeman entered while Miss Tibbs remained outside in the car.

There is some dispute as to whether the arrest was made in the liquor store, only on the basis of defendant’s association with Freeman, or outside the store after a partially smoked marijuana butt had been found in the rear of the car, where Freeman had been sitting, and a gelatin capsule (not otherwise described) had been found in Miss Tibbs’ purse. Even if it be assumed that the arrest was made outside, after the discovery of the “evidence”, it was without probable cause to believe defendant guilty of any offense.

There was no justification for the warrantless arrest of defendant who was, for all that appears, a mere bystander or accompanier. United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210. It follows that the counterfeit was illegally obtained, was not admissible in evidence and should have been ordered suppressed on defendant’s timely motion. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441; F.R.Crim.Proc., Rule 41(e).

The judgment of conviction is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of five counterfeit $100 Federal -Reserve notes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. The counterfeit was found in defendant’s possession during a search by the Los Angeles police following his arrest without a warrant. He was arrested while in the company of one Freeman. Information and events preceding the arrest indicated that Freeman had engaged in an illegal cocaine transaction inside a building some distance away from the point of arrest, while defendant and a Miss Tibbs waited outside in an automobile. The latter subsequently drove Freeman and defendant to a liquor store, which defendant and Freeman entered while Miss Tibbs remained outside in the car.

There is some dispute as to whether the arrest was made in the liquor store, only on the basis of defendant’s association with Freeman, or outside the store after a partially smoked marijuana butt had been found in the rear of the car, where Freeman had been sitting, and a gelatin capsule (not otherwise described) had been found in Miss Tibbs’ purse. Even if it be assumed that the arrest was made outside, after the discovery of the “evidence”, it was without probable cause to believe defendant guilty of any offense.

There was no justification for the warrantless arrest of defendant who was, for all that appears, a mere bystander or accompanier. United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210. It follows that the counterfeit was illegally obtained, was not admissible in evidence and should have been ordered suppressed on defendant’s timely motion. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441; F.R.Crim.Proc., Rule 41(e).

The judgment of conviction is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 F.2d 355, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-otto-hughes-linnear-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack