UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM HARVEY FLOYD, DAVID MICHAEL FLOYD, GEORGE SAMUEL FLOYD, RONALD MARTIS RAY AND MANUEL BOCARDO GARCIA, JR., 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 admission of recorded conversations and the warrantless search of a vehicle's trunk were proper.
Appellants were convicted of drug offenses. They challenged the admission of recorded conversations and the warrantless search of a car trunk where dr…
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 Probable Cause For Warrantless Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal their various drug convictions and we affirm. Two points only merit brief discussion.
Complaint is made of the admission in evidence of certain tapes of a conversation, one ground of complaint being that some of the elements enumerated for admissibility of such tapes in the Eighth Circuit opinion of United States v. McMillan, 508 F. 2d 101 (8th Cir. 1974), were not established. We do not recognize McMillan ’s test in this circuit. United States v. Anderton, 679 F. 2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Biggins, 551 F. 2d 64 (5th Cir. 1977). All that is required under our rule is proof of
the competency of the operator, the fidelity of the recording equipment, the absence of material .. . alterations in the relevant portions of the recording, and the identification of the relevant speakers.
551 F. 2d at 66. We conclude that the showing made here sufficed, under the broad discretion accorded trial courts in the admission of evidence, to comply with the test of our court.
Appellants also complain of the warrantless search of the trunk of an automobile which one of them, David Michael Floyd, was driving when he was apprehended. The record, however, establishes probable cause for the arresting officers to have believed that the vehicle in question was transporting contraband — the drugs actually discovered by the search. The remaining question raised by the opening of containers discovered in that trunk, containers that may have been opaque,1 has been settled by the intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Ross, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982).
AFFIRMED.
. The record is likewise opaque on this point.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Lance, 853 F.2d 1177 (5th Cir. 1988)
-
United States v. Badolato, 710 F.2d 1509 (11th Cir. 1983)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- United States v. McMILLAN, 508 F.2d 101 (8th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Ulysses Biggins, 551 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Anderton, 679 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1982)