CARLO

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (34 total)

• United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971)
  …been formally initiated or have held that the sole safeguard against pre-indictment delay is the relevant statute of limitations: United States v. Feinberg, 383 F. 2d 60, 65 (CA2 1967); Carlo v. United States, 286 F. 2d 841, 846 (CA2), cert. denied, 366 U. S. 944 (1961); Pitts v. North Carolina, 395 F. 2d 182, 185 n. 3 (CA4 1968); United States v. Durham, 413 F. 2d 1003, 1004 (CA5 1969); Kroll v. United States, 433 F. 2d 1282, 1286 (CA5 1970), cert. denied, 402 U. S. 944 (1971); United States v. Grayson, 416…
• United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1976)
  …y law enforcement officers in executing an arrest warrant does not ordinarily affect the legality of the arrest.17 [*452] United States v. Wilson, supra; Wilson v. United States, supra; Carlo v. United States, 286 F. 2d 841, 846 (CA2), cert. denied, 366 U. S. 944 (1961); United States v. Joines, 258 F. 2d 471 (CA3), cert. denied, 358 U. S. 880 (1958); Giordenello v. United States, 241 F. 2d 575 (CA5 1957), rev’d on other grounds, 357 U. S. 480 (1958). In short, staleness should be the least of an arresting…
• United States v. Squella-Avendano, 447 F.2d 575 (5th Cir. 1971)
  …ted States v. Santiago, 327 F. 2d 573 (2 Cir. 1964) ; Williams v. United States, 260 F. 2d 125 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied 359 U.S. 918, 79 S.Ct. 596, 3 L.Ed.2d 579. . See, e. g., Carlo v. United States, 286 F. 2d 841 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied 366 U.S. 944, 81 S.Ct. 1672, 6 L.Ed.2d 855; Dailey v. United States, 261 F. 2d 870 (5tli Cir. 1958) cert. denied 359 U.S. 969, 79 S.Ct. 881, 3 L.Ed.2d 836. The value of this rationale is well illustrated by the facts of this ease. Had the agents been required t…