United States v. Peter Gradowski

Second Circuit

United States v. Peter Gradowski

502 F.2d 563, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6933

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 10, 1974

Docket1248, Docket 74-1710

StatusPublished

Cited by49 cases

This text of 502 F.2d 563 (United States v. Peter Gradowski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Peter Gradowski, 502 F.2d 563, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6933 (2d Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the appellant’s conviction on seven counts of an indictment relating to possession of stolen goods and mail fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(c), 1341-1342.

Appellant’s principal ground for appeal is based on the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress documents linking him with the crimes of which he was convicted, which were seized in a warrantless search of his automobile trunk. The search was found by the trial court to have been made with the consent of the Hammers, people at whose house appellant had left his car, to whom he had given the keys, and who — rather than being under any compulsioii from any previous wrongful assertion by the federal agents of authority to search their house — were quite happy to give the car keys to the agents, wanting as they were to be rid of any connection with appellant and his cohort, Mrs. Hammer’s brother. The finding of consent was amply justified by the evidence. Consent to a search by one with access to the area searched, and either common authority over it, a substantial interest in it or permission to exercise that access, express or implied, alone validates the search. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 170-171, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); United States v. Gargiso, 456 F.2d 584, 587 (2d Cir. 1972).

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the appellant’s conviction on seven counts of an indictment relating to possession of stolen goods and mail fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(c), 1341-1342.

Appellant’s principal ground for appeal is based on the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress documents linking him with the crimes of which he was convicted, which were seized in a warrantless search of his automobile trunk. The search was found by the trial court to have been made with the consent of the Hammers, people at whose house appellant had left his car, to whom he had given the keys, and who — rather than being under any compulsioii from any previous wrongful assertion by the federal agents of authority to search their house — were quite happy to give the car keys to the agents, wanting as they were to be rid of any connection with appellant and his cohort, Mrs. Hammer’s brother. The finding of consent was amply justified by the evidence. Consent to a search by one with access to the area searched, and either common authority over it, a substantial interest in it or permission to exercise that access, express or implied, alone validates the search. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 170-171, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); United States v. Gargiso, 456 F.2d 584, 587 (2d Cir. 1972).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 F.2d 563, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-peter-gradowski-ca2-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack