United States v. Terry Savage A/K/A Timothy Robins

459 F.2d 60, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10045
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 17, 1972
Docket71-3044
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 60 (United States v. Terry Savage A/K/A Timothy Robins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Terry Savage A/K/A Timothy Robins, 459 F.2d 60, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10045 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The defendant executed a consent form giving permission for search of his residence without a warrant. The form included an acknowledgement by the signatory that he had been informed of his right not to have the premises searched without a warrant, that he was aware of such right to refuse to consent, and that he gave his permission voluntarily and without threats or promises. The consent was not rendered involuntary by reason of the fact that before signing the form the defendant asked the police officer if the officer could get a search warrant and the officer replied “Yes, we probably can.” The officer’s statement was in response to defendant’s inquiry, and it was not a misrepresentation of the facts. United States v. Curiale, 414 F.2d 744 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 959, 90 S.Ct. 433, 24 L.Ed.2d 424 (1969).

Nor are we persuaded that the defendant’s will was overborne by the presence of a number of FBI agents and police officers at his residence when the defendant executed the consent form. Though some of those present did possess firearms, there is no indication in the record that the weapons were handled in a threatening manner. The district court concluded that, considering all the circumstances surrounding Savage’s consent, including the number of law enforcement personnel, the consent was valid. This finding was not “plainly erroneous, which is our scope of review of facts found at a motion to suppress hearing.” United States v. Resnick, 455 F.2d 1127 [5th Cir., 1972].

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Harth
652 F. Supp. 1463 (S.D. Florida, 1987)
Daniels v. State
534 So. 2d 628 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Lackey v. State
638 S.W.2d 439 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1982)
United States v. Robert Webb
633 F.2d 1140 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
Whitener v. State
390 So. 2d 1136 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1980)
United States v. Jess Harlan White
617 F.2d 1131 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
State v. Rathburn
239 N.W.2d 253 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1976)
Whitman v. State
336 A.2d 515 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
MacK v. State
298 So. 2d 509 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Terry Eugene Savage v. United States
483 F.2d 67 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
The United States of America v. David George Culp
472 F.2d 459 (Eighth Circuit, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 F.2d 60, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-terry-savage-aka-timothy-robins-ca5-1972.