EARNEST T. PAGE, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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 arrest and search were valid, and the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
Earnest T. Page was convicted of narcotics violations and appealed, challenging the admission of seized narcotics. He later filed an application under…
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 Arrest Warrant Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Earnest T. Page was convicted in 1965 of six violations of the federal narcotics laws. He appealed, challenging the admission into evidence of narcotics seized at the time of his arrest. He asserted that the warrant for his arrest was invalid and, in addition, that the search incident thereto was unreasonable in scope. This court affirmed, holding that, since the narcotics were material solely to two of the six counts, it was unnecessary to determine the issues. Page v. United States, 356 F. 2d 337 (9th Cir. 1966).
Page filed the present application under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, again challenging the validity of his arrest and of the search. This time, however, he urged that the trial court consider the illegally seized evidence in fixing sentence. See Verdugo v. United States, 402 F. 2d 599 (9th Cir. 1968). The district court denied relief, finding that the arrest and search were valid. We agree.
But even if the warrant was invalid the arrest was not, for the agent himself had probable cause to believe Page had committed a violation of the narcotic laws 1 and thus, aside from the warrant, could make a valid arrest and search incident thereto. 26 U.S.C. 7607(2) 1964; Ray v. United States, 412 F. 2d 1052 (9th Cir. 1969); Rocha v. United States, 387 F. 2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1967); Bell v. United States, 371 F. 2d 35 (9th Cir. 1967) 2 ; United States v. Hall, 348 F. 2d 837 (2d Cir. 1965).
Page’s second claim, concerning the scope of the search, rests on Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), but that decision is not retroactive, and this search under the pre-existing rule was not unreasonable. Williams v. United States, 418 F. 2d 159 (9th Cir. 1969); and see United States v. Bellinger, 422 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1970).
Petitioner’s final contention that he was without effective assistance of counsel on the motion to suppress is likewise without merit.
Affirmed.
. The narcotic agent testified that on the day of the arrest he negotiated a sale of heroin from Page to himself.
. The arrest warrant in Bell was issued under circumstances almost identical to those in the present case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Oswald, 441 F.2d 44 (9th Cir. 1971)
-
United States v. Miles, 468 F.2d 482 (3d Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969)
- Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Williams v. United States, 418 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Hall, 348 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1965)
- Rocha v. United States, 387 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Bellinger, 422 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1970)
- Earnest T. Page v. United States, 356 F.2d 337 (9th Cir. 1966)
- RAY v. United States, 412 F.2d 1052 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Bell v. United States, 371 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1967)