WALTER SELINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
LESTER BIGLER, SPECIAL AGENT OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ET AL., APPELLEES
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 trial court's finding of voluntary consent was not clearly erroneous and was sufficient to support the denial of the motion to return records.
Appellant sought return of IRS-seized records, claiming unlawful search and seizure and violation of his right to counsel. The trial court denied reli…
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 Escobedo V. Illinois cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Selinger appeals from the denial of his motion to return copies of his records and suppress their use as evidence made pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 41(e).1 The copies were made by agents of the Internal Revenue Service in the course of an investigation under circumstances which, appellant asserts, amounted to an unlawful search and seizure. The District Court denied relief upon the ground that appellant had given consent to the examination of his records.
Appellant contends that his constitutional right to counsel was violated under Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), in that the investigation had reached the accusatory stage (a Special Agent having participated in the investigation), and he was not advised of his rights. This court has ruled against appellant’s contention in Kohatsu v. United States, 351 F. 2d 898 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1011, 86 S.Ct. 1915, 16 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1966). Appellant seeks to distinguish that case. We find no basis for distinction and regard the decision as controlling here.
Appellant challenges the court’s finding of a voluntary consent. In our judgment the finding was not clearly erroneous.
Appellant contends that the court’s finding of consent was not sufficient to support a conclusion that constitutional rights had not been violated. In our judgment the finding was sufficient.
Affirmed.
. See Hoffritz v. United States, 240 F. 2d 109 (9th Cir. 1956); Rodgers v. United States, 158 F.Supp. 670 (S.D.Cal.1958). This is an appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1964) per Goodman v. United States, 309 F. 2d 166 (9th Cir. 1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Schlinsky v. United States, 379 F.2d 735 (1st Cir. 1967)
-
Donn VonderAHE and Barbara VonderAhe v. Howland, 508 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1974)
-
Cohen v. United States, 405 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1968)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Baines v. City of Danville, 384 U.S. 890 (U.S. 1966)
- Kohatsu v. United States, 351 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1965)
- California v. Furnish, 384 U.S. 1011 (U.S. 1966)
- Sullins v. California, 384 U.S. 1011 (U.S. 1966)
- Hoffritz v. United States, 240 F.2d 109 (9th Cir. 1956)