RAIMONDI
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence obtained from the defendant was admissible because it was voluntarily disclosed after being informed of his arrest and rights, and after consenting to a search.
Appellant was arrested for violating narcotic statutes and informed of the charges. He consented to a search of his home. While the search was commenc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant and a codefendant were tried below upon a six count indictment. Appellant was found guilty upon two counts, one charging violation of the Jones-Miller Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174; and the other charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, a conspiracy to violate the Jones-Miller Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, and the Harrison Narcotic Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 2556, 2557. His codefendant was found guilty upon all six counts of the indictment.
The sole ground of appellant’s appeal is that the District Court erred in denying his motion for suppression of evidence. Before proceeding with the trial below, the District Court conducted a hearing, in the absence of the Jury, and heard evidence upon the motion.
There was testimony adduced upon the hearing showing that, upon a warrant, narcotic agents arrested the defendant in a garage adjacent to his home. At his request they took him into his home. There, he was informed that he was arrested for violation of the narcotic statutes. The agents then asked him if he had any objection to a search of his home, to which he replied that, since he was innocent, he had no objection and the agents could search. The agents, started to search. (The record1 is silent as to the extent or nature of the search.) Thereupon, the defendant stated to the narcotics agents, that if they would take off the handcuffs, he would show them the narcotics he had. He then went to a cupboard, took therefrom a box containing 14y% ounces of heroin and handed the same to the narcotic agents.
This evidence fully sustained the holding of the District Court denying the motion to suppress.
Since that is the only ground of the appeal, the judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. The record before us does not contain the upon the motion to suppress. trial proceedings, but only tbe proceedings