REX HUBBARD, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY C. TINSLEY, WARDEN, COLORADO STATE PENITENTIARY, APPELLEE
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 appellant voluntarily consented to the search of the locker, supporting the denial of his habeas corpus petition.
Appellant, while under arrest, gave state officers a key to a locker, stating they could 'go see for yourselves.' The officers used the key to search …
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 Voluntary Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court for the District of Colorado denying relief upon appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus after a full evidentiary hearing. Such hearing was held pursuant to the directions of this Court indicated in an earlier consideration of appellant’s contentions, Hubbard v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 336 F. 2d 854, and extensively probed the factual question of whether appellant had voluntarily consented to a search by state officers which had resulted in the seizure of evidence used against him in his state trial. The trial court has now specifically found that appellant intended to, and did, freely consent to the subject search.
Appellant and two state officers each testified as to the circumstances and background leading to appellant’s alleged consent to the search. In brief summary, appellant, while lawfully under arrest, was found to have in his possession a key to a locker located in a bus depot. Upon being questioned as to the contents of the locker appellant stated: “You have got the key; go see for yourselves.” This the officers did and seized the evidence which subsequently was used against appellant at his trial.
Although consent to a search made by one in custody may be suspect, particular words of consent must “always be weighed in light of the atmosphere and totality of circumstances in which they are spoken in order to determine the intent and voluntariness of the words.” Weed v. United States, 10 Cir., 340 F. 2d 827, 829. The trial court found from substantial evidence that appellant made the quoted statement after being fully advised of his constitutional rights and that he was knowledgeable in investigative and legal proceedings. The record also shows that appellant was calm and cooperative and that the statement was unsolicited and untainted by promise or threat. We conclude that the totality of circumstances is such as to support the trial court’s finding.
Other contentions asserted by appellant were not raised in the court below and are not properly before us.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clayman Clifford Shultz v. United States, 351 F.2d 287 (10th Cir. 1965)
-
United States v. Shields, 573 F.2d 18 (10th Cir. 1978)
-
Hubbard v. Patterson, 374 F.2d 856 (10th Cir. 1967)
Authorities Cited
- Weed v. United States, 340 F.2d 827 (10th Cir. 1965)
- Hubbard v. Tinsley, 336 F.2d 854 (10th Cir. 1964)