United States v. Walter Rodger Webster, Charles Frazier

426 F.2d 289, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9177
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 18, 1970·No. 14398_1·Published

Opinion

426 F.2d 289

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Walter Rodger WEBSTER, Charles Frazier, Appellants.

No. 14322.

No. 14324.

No. 14398.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 7, 1970.

Decided May 18, 1970.

Harold I. Glaser, Baltimore, Md. (Harvey A. Blum, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.

J. Frederick Motz, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Stephen H. Sachs, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The only question worthy of consideration is whether the search and seizure violated the fourth amendment, so that the evidence obtained should have been suppressed. The questioned search occurred prior to the effective date of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). We have previously held Chimel not to be retroactive in application. Porter v. Ashmore, 421 F.2d 1186 (4th Cir. 1970). Whether the search was reasonable is thus to be determined by application of the standards of United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950). Applying that standard we find no error.

Affirmed.

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

United States v. Walter Rodger Webster, Charles Frazier, 426 F.2d 289, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9177 (4th Cir. 1970).

426 F.2d 289 (United States v. Walter Rodger Webster, Charles Frazier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Rabinowitz
339 U.S. 56 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Chimel v. California
395 U.S. 752 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Porter v. Ashmore
421 F.2d 1186 (Fourth Circuit, 1970)
United States v. Webster
426 F.2d 289 (Fourth Circuit, 1970)