UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES L. PORTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 record was inadequate to determine the constitutionality of the search and seizure.
Defendant was convicted of possessing stolen goods. A motion to suppress evidence was made during trial, which the judge denied without taking evidenc…
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 Possession Of Stolen Goods In Interstate Commerce cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from conviction and sentence for possession of goods stolen from an interstate shipment in violation of 18U.S.C. § 659.
No motion for suppression of evidence was made prior to trial, but during trial counsel for defendant moved to suppress evidence as to the very articles the possession of which was alleged to constitute the crime.
The District Judge denied the motion without taking evidence and without entering any findings of fact or conclusions of law. This is entirely understandable since the Supreme Court decision in Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964) was released the same day the instant case was tried, and hence could not have come to the attention of the District Judge. The Preston case limited searches without warrant incident to a lawful arrest to those which are not “remote in time or place from the arrest.” Preston v. United States, supra at 367, 84 S.Ct. at 883.
As to this issue, our review of this record convinces us that the testimony it contains is inadequate to resolve the constitutionality of the search and seizure here involved.
Judgment vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Williams v. United States, 282 F. 2d 940, 941 (C.A. 6, 1960); United States v. Williams, 314 F. 2d 795 (C.A. 6, 1963).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1964)
- United States v. Gray Williams, 314 F.2d 795 (6th Cir. 1963)
- Gray Williams v. United States, 282 F.2d 940 (6th Cir. 1960)