United States v. Richard Kenneth Beye

445 F.2d 1037, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9078
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 8, 1971
Docket24418_1
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 445 F.2d 1037 (United States v. Richard Kenneth Beye) 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. Richard Kenneth Beye, 445 F.2d 1037, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9078 (9th Cir. 1971).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Beye appeals from his conviction for knowingly concealing or facilitating the transportation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a and for knowingly concealing or facilitating the transportation of illegally imported amphetamine tablets and barbiturate capsules in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545.

Appellant relies primarily upon the argument that he was the victim of an unlawful search and seizure. We find no merit in this contention. The discovery of the drugs occurred at an immigration checkpoint in the course of a lawful search for aliens. See, e. g., Fumagalli v. United States, 429 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1970).1

Appellant also asserts as error the court’s refusal to permit him to call as a witness one who had been indicted with him as codefendant but as to whom a mistrial had been declared. The court had been advised that this proposed witness would assert his privilege against self-incrimination if questioned about the offense. A hearing out of the presence of the jury served to satisfy the court that such would indeed be the result were the witness called to the stand. Appellant contends, however, that he was entitled to require the witness to take the stand and invoke his privilege in the presence of the jury. Bowles v. United States, 439 F.2d 536 (D.C.Cir.1970), holds to the contrary and we agree.

Other points asserted by appellant we find to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Crawford
2007 SD 20 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2007)
State v. Rollins
188 S.W.3d 553 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2006)
United States v. Griffin
Fifth Circuit, 1995
State v. Kirk
1995 Ohio 204 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)
State v. Burns
777 S.W.2d 355 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1989)
Davis v. State
529 N.E.2d 112 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1988)
State v. Berry
658 S.W.2d 476 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Paul Arnott
704 F.2d 322 (Sixth Circuit, 1983)
Frazier v. Harrison
537 F. Supp. 17 (E.D. Tennessee, 1981)
State v. Dicks
615 S.W.2d 126 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1981)
United States v. Peter Licavoli, Sr.
604 F.2d 613 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Orange Jell Beechum
582 F.2d 898 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)
Frazier v. State
566 S.W.2d 545 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1977)
United States v. Patricia Campbell Hearst
563 F.2d 1331 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)
United States v. Herman Tyrone Harris
542 F.2d 1283 (Seventh Circuit, 1976)
United States v. Wilson
432 F. Supp. 223 (S.D. Texas, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
445 F.2d 1037, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-richard-kenneth-beye-ca9-1971.