UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JEFFREY TODD MARSHALL AND LOUIS JAMES STERRENBERG, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 search was not prohibited by Robbins v. California or its progeny.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on a motion to suppress. The district court denied the motion after further proceedings. The discovery o…
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 Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In United States v. Marshall, 609 F. 2d 152 (5th Cir. 1980), this case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings touching upon the motion to suppress.
The district judge gave prompt attention to the matter and, after the further proceedings contemplated in our remand, prepared and filed a detailed written order with necessary findings. The motion to suppress was denied; the verdicts and judgments were reinstated.
The case was resubmitted to this panel for final review, as directed. Thereafter, in September 1981 and in December 1981 counsel supplied this court with supplemental authorities and raised issues not theretofore presented.
We have examined the record, the district court’s order, on remand, denying motion to suppress, and the additional submission of counsel. We do not read Robbins v. Cali fornia, 453 U.S. 420, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981), or its progeny as prohibiting the search here under consideration. The obviousness of the nature of the contents of the packages discovered aboard the vessel in the environment wherein they were discovered equates the discovery of the packages with the discovery of their contents.
With that observation, the judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of Judge King’s Order filed October 10, 1980.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Kent, 691 F.2d 1376 (11th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1981)
- United States v. Marshall, 609 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1980)