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
United States of America, Appellee, v. Othell Campbell, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit. - 395 F.2d 848
Argued May 4, 1968.Decided May 20, 1968
Thomas W. Greene, Greenville, S.C. (Sol E. Abrams, and Abrams, Bowen & Townes, Greenville, S.C., on brief) for appellant.
William B. Long, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty. (Klyde Robinson, U.S. Atty., and Robert O. DuPre, Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief) for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, CRAVEN, Circuit Judge, and MacKENZIE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Convicted of possession of illicit whiskey, Othell Campbell has appealed, complaining that his motion to suppress evidence gained from an unlawful search and seizure should have been granted. The search in question was the viewing by Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division agents from an adjacent cornfield of a transaction in illicit whiskey which took place in the backyard of Campbell's home. The agents were not within the curtilage and the 'open field' doctrine is applicable to their observations. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898; United States v. Shue, 4 Cir., 385 F.2d 416; McDowell v. United States, 8 Cir., 383 F.2d 599; Rosencranz v. United States, 1 Cir., 356 F.2d 310; United States v. Hassell, 6 Cir., 336 F.2d 684; United States v. Young, 4 Cir. 322 F.2d 443; United States v. Potts, 6 Cir., 297 F.2d 68; Hodges v. United States, 5 Cir., 243 F.2d 281; Care v. United States, 10 Cir., 231 F.2d 22; Janney v. United States, 4 Cir., 206 F.2d 601. Nothing said in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, requires a different result.
Affirmed.