JOHN M. LITTLE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
B. J. RHAY, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY, WALLA WALLA, WASHINGTON, RESPONDENT-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 warrantless search was reasonable under the pre-Chimel totality of the circumstances test and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus.
Petitioner was convicted of aiding and abetting narcotics possession based on heroin introduced at trial. He argued this evidence was the fruit of an …
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 Chimel V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Little appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Convicted of aiding and abetting the possession of narcotics, Little argues that the heroin introduced at his trial was the fruit of an illegal search and seizure.
The availability of a full record of the state hearing on the motion to suppress and the lack of a substantial dispute as to the evidentiary facts render an evidentiary hearing unnecessary. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 314, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); Rainsberger v. Fogliani, 380 F. 2d 783, 785 (9th Cir. 1967).
Little argues that the use of an ex parte affidavit signed by the arresting officers in a prior habeas proceeding before the Supreme Court of Washington abridged his right of confrontation. Whatever the merits of that view, the alleged error did not infect the District Court’s independent review of the state record because the district judge declined to consider the supplemental affidavit.
The rule of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), does not apply to this 1959 search. See Williams v. United States, 397 U.S. 986, 90 S.Ct. 1120, 25 L.Ed.2d 394 (April 5, 1971). The search of Little’s apartment, incident to the arrest of a codefendant therein, was limited to one shelf in a passage between the kitchen and living room. The arresting officer had observed the codefendant withdrawing his hand from the shelf, and the search took place substantially simultaneously with the arrest. We do not understand Little to argue that the officer had no probable cause to arrest the eodefendant at the time the officer entered the apartment. Under the pre-Chimel totality of the circumstances test, the warrantless search here was reasonable. See Stamps v. United States, 436 F. 2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1971); Williams v. United States, 418 F. 2d 159 (9th Cir. 1969), aff’d 397 U.S. 986, 90 S.Ct. 1120, 25 L.Ed.2d 394 (April 5, 1971).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griswold v. Eyman, 452 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1963)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969)
- Williams v. United States, 418 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 397 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1970)
- Stamps v. United States, 436 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1971)
- Rainsberger v. Fogliani, 380 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1967)