UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
EUGENE NEDD, JR., 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 firearm was admissible under the plain view doctrine, despite not being listed in the search warrant.
Defendant, a convicted felon, was found guilty of possessing a firearm. The firearm was discovered during a search of his apartment for heroin, pursua…
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 A Firearm By A Convicted Felon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Defendant, a previously convicted felon, was found guilty by the court of possession of a firearm which had been shipped in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(h) and 924(a).
The district court denied a motion to suppress the firearm, the product of a search of defendant’s apartment. Although the search was made pursuant to a warrant, the firearm was not described in the search warrant, obtained to search for heroin. Although they had no success in finding heroin, the police found a pistol under a mattress while looking for heroin.
The officer who obtained the warrant knew that defendant was a convicted felon and had heard that he sometimes carried a pistol.
If the police knew of the firearm and its location and intended to seize it without describing it particularly in the warrant, a Fourth Amendment violation would have occurred. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).
The district court, however, found that police were searching for heroin, not a firearm. Neither of the policemen conducting the search knew that defendant actually possessed the firearm at the time the warrant was obtained or that it was located at the apartment. The firearm was not the object of the search. The findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous.
The pistol is admissible under the plain view doctrine when discovered in a place where the police could properly be looking in execution of the warrant. United States v. Bills, 555 F. 2d 1250, 1251 (5th Cir. 1977).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Bills, 555 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir. 1977)