United States v. Rose

429 U.S. 5, 97 S. Ct. 26, 50 L. Ed. 2d 5, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 164
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedOctober 12, 1976
Docket75-1535
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 429 U.S. 5 (United States v. Rose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Rose, 429 U.S. 5, 97 S. Ct. 26, 50 L. Ed. 2d 5, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 164 (1976).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The operative facts herein are substantially identical to those in United States v. Morrison, ante, p. 1. Respondent’s ear was stopped by Border Patrol agents; a search disclosed marihuana. Respondent lost a motion to suppress and was found guilty after a bench trial. Following this trial, but before sentencing, the District Court, relying upon our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), granted respondent’s motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as it did in Morrison, found the Government’s appeal barred by double jeopardy.

In United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332 (1975), we held that double jeopardy would not bar a Government appeal if success on that appeal would result in the reinstatement of a verdict of guilty. The fact that the order of suppression here occurred after a general finding of guilt rendered by the court in a bench trial, rather than after a return of a verdict of guilty by a jury, is immaterial. Morrison, ante, p. 1. Double jeopardy, therefore, does not bar an appeal by the Government.

We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court for proceedings consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

Purdue v. NaphCare
D. Arizona, 2025
Hart v. Crouse
W.D. Washington, 2025
(PC) Bowcutt v. Daram
E.D. California, 2025
Souza v. Dr. Vaid
N.D. California, 2024
(PC) Anderson v. Vangerwen
E.D. California, 2021
(PC) Burke v. Ditomas
E.D. California, 2021
Steah 200537 v. Shinn
D. Arizona, 2021
(PC) McCowan v. McKeown
E.D. California, 2021
George v. Diaz
N.D. California, 2020
Pierson v. Martinelli
S.D. California, 2020
(PC) Howard v. Aryad
E.D. California, 2020
Boggs v. Shinn
D. Arizona, 2020
(PC) Johnson v. Kelley
E.D. California, 2020
(PC) Cardenas v. Edwards
E.D. California, 2019
(PC) Walker v. Kernan
E.D. California, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
429 U.S. 5, 97 S. Ct. 26, 50 L. Ed. 2d 5, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rose-scotus-1976.