United States v. Sylvia L. Mendenhall and David A. Camacho

596 F.2d 706, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15611
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedApril 6, 1979
Docket78-5064, 78-5081
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 596 F.2d 706 (United States v. Sylvia L. Mendenhall and David A. Camacho) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Sylvia L. Mendenhall and David A. Camacho, 596 F.2d 706, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15611 (6th Cir. 1979).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

On petition filed by the United States, this court, on January 12, 1979, vacated the decisions in No. 78-5064, United States v. Sylvia L. Mendenhall, and No. 78-5081, United States v. David A. Camacho, and scheduled arguments on both before the court en banc. The cases have now been briefed and orally argued before the full court.

On careful review of the records, and the authorities cited to us in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals, we now conclude that the panel decisions in both Mendenhall and Camacho should be and are hereby reinstated.

Our review of the facts in both of these cases convinces the majority of this court that in neither case was there valid consent to search within the meaning of United States v. McCaleb, 552 F.2d 717 (6th Cir. 1977). We also hold that the so-called drug courier profile does not, in itself, represent a legal standard of probable cause in this Circuit. We recognize, of course, that the drug enforcement agency’s employment of this profile in educating its officers as to what conduct to look for in relation to drug couriers is a perfectly valid law enforcement device.

Examination of these records and re-examination of precedent in these airport drug search cases in this and other Appellate Courts have led to our decision not to attempt to formulate definitive rules. Despite some general similarities, every single case differs from every other in material degree.

In view of our en banc decision set forth above, we now reverse our preceding denial of bail to Mendenhall and Camacho and remand these cases to the District Court for determination of an appropriate bond pending petitions for writ of certiorari.

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

Related

State v. Thompson
166 P.3d 1015 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2007)
People v. Spicer
157 Cal. App. 3d 213 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
United States v. Ronnie D. Moore
675 F.2d 802 (Sixth Circuit, 1982)
Shapiro v. State
390 So. 2d 344 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
Royer v. State
389 So. 2d 1007 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
United States v. Mendenhall
446 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 1980)
United States v. Amparo Forero-Rincon
626 F.2d 218 (Second Circuit, 1980)
United States v. Politano
491 F. Supp. 456 (W.D. New York, 1980)
United States v. Ronald L. Korman
614 F.2d 541 (Sixth Circuit, 1980)
United States v. Maria Vasquez
612 F.2d 1338 (Second Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Webb
480 F. Supp. 750 (E.D. New York, 1979)
United States v. Stephenson
490 F. Supp. 625 (E.D. Michigan, 1979)
United States v. Richard Kevin Post
607 F.2d 847 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
State v. Frost
374 So. 2d 593 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
United States v. Tallice Andrews
600 F.2d 563 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)
United States v. Alex Elmore
595 F.2d 1036 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
596 F.2d 706, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sylvia-l-mendenhall-and-david-a-camacho-ca6-1979.