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
Robert F. Hinton, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 262 F.2d 36
Argued Sept. 10, 1958.Decided Dec. 4, 1958, Petition for Rehearing Denied Jan. 13,1959, Certiorari Denied March 23, 1959, See 79S.Ct. 726
Mr. Donald E. Cross, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Bryce Rea, Jr., Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Louis M. Kaplan, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., Carl W. Belcher and Frederick G. Smithson, Asst. U.S. Attys. were on the brief, for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON and WASHINGTON, Circuit judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a narcotics case. 26 U.S.C. 4704(a) (Supp. V, 1958); 21 U.S.C.A. 174 (Supp. V, 1958). Appellant urges that his conviction should be set aside because he was arrested without probable cause, and hence the narcotics taken from him by the police at the time of arrest should have been suppressed as evidence illegally taken. We cannot agree, as it seems to us that the information known to the police was sufficient to justify appellant's apprehension. We reach this conclusion on the basis of our own reading of the record, rather than on the District Court's findings. We place no reliance, for example, on the circumstance that no cigarettes were found on appellant's person at the time of his arrest although his story was that he had gone to purchase cigarettes just prior to being arrested. A post-arrest happening of this sort is not evidence of probable cause.
Affirmed.