MAGEE

v.

CARROW ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Morell, 524 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1975)
  …tana, 485 F. 2d 365, 369—70 n.8 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 931, 94 S.Ct. 1444, 39 L.Ed.2d 490 (1974), this contention is without merit. As this court observed in United States v. Lisznyai, 470 F. 2d 707, 710 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 987, 93 S.Ct. 1516, 36 L.Ed.2d 184 (1973), Coolidge dealt with a planned warrantless seizure. The Coolidge plurality’s inadvertence requirement does not apply to cases where the prime motivation of an entry is to appre [*556] hend persons whom the polic…
• United States v. Artieri, 491 F.2d 440 (2d Cir. 1974)
  …ve ample opportunity to obtain a search warrant and the intention to seize the evidence is really the prime motivation for the arrest, the plain view exception does not apply.” United States v. Lisznyai, 470 F. 2d 707, 710 (2 Cir. 1972), cert. den., 410 U.S. 987, 93 S.Ct. 1516, 36 L.Ed.2d 184 (1973). See also United States v. Santana, supra. Although in the present case the narcotics were openly on the table, the plain view exception was not the basis for the seizure nor was any attempt made to claim that…
• United States v. ROE, 495 F.2d 600 (10th Cir. 1974)
  …the arrest was made is revealed and seized during a lawful search, it is admissible in a subsequent prosecution. United States v. Robinson, supra-, Adams v. Williams, supra. In Ramirez v. Rodriguez, 467 F. 2d 822, 824 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 987, 93 S.Ct. 1518, 36 L.Ed.2d 185 (1973), we said: “If, in making the search, the officer discovers evidence of another crime, he may seize the evidence and it may be used against the accused at a subsequent trial.” We find no error in the denial of th…