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
James Heffley, Appellant, v. Carl Hocker, Warden Nevada State Prison, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 429 F.2d 1321
July 13, 1970
James A. Heffley, James C. Martin, Carson City, Nev., for appellant.
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., of Nevada, Carson City, Nev., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
On December 9, 1969, Judge Powell dissenting, we reversed a district court order which had denied relief in this habeas corpus proceeding and remanded the cause to the district court for further proceedings. On June 29, 1970, the United States Supreme Court, sub nom. Hocker v. Heffley, 399 U.S. 521, 90 S.Ct. 2236, 26 L.Ed.2d 780, vacated our judgment and remanded the cause to this court for further consideration in light of Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419, decided June 22, 1970.
The rationale of Chambers v. Maroney requires us to hold that the search and seizure here in question was valid under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. All of Heffley's points on appeal are predicated upon his contention, which must now be rejected, that such search and seizure was illegal. Accordingly, the order dismissing the habeas proceeding is
Affirmed.