Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Jaroshuk et al. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 201 F.2d 52
Jan. 6, 1953
James J. Silver, Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.
Frank E. Flynn, U. S. Atty., K. Berry Peterson, John F. O'Mara, Asst. U. S. Attys., Tucson, Ariz., and Ross D. Blakley, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.
Before HEALY, BONE, and ORR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a conviction under an indictment charging violations of the counterfeiting statutes, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 472 and 474, relating to the altering of and the possession of altered currency of the United States. The sole claim of error relates to the admission of evidence obtained as the result of a search and seizure without a warrant. No federal officer participated either in the search or in the seizure of the articles introduced in evidence, and no federal officer had knowledge thereof until a later time and after the articles had been taken by local police to the police station. There is no evidence of collusion between the police and the federal officer to whom the articles were eventually delivered. It further appears from the record that the search made by the police was solely for the purpose of discovering a suspected violation of state laws.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed on the authority of Lustig v. United States, 338 U.S. 74, 69 S.Ct. 1372, 93 L.Ed. 1819, and Symons v. United States, 9 Cir., 178 F.2d 615, 618, certiorari denied, 339 U.S. 985, 70 S.Ct. 1006, 94 L.Ed. 1388.