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, Plaintiff-appellee, v. John Darwin Puckett, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 551 F.2d 59
April 20, 1977
P. Bruce Kirwan, Federal Public Defender, Ralph Washington, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.
John W. Stokes, U. S. Atty., Dorothy T. Beasley, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Puckett appeals his conviction for possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, 26 U.S.C.A. § 5861(d) (Supp.1976). He contends the warrantless seizure of the weapon violated his Fourth Amendment rights and the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
Shortly before his arrest, the defendant was lying on a motel room bed with the shotgun by his side. Local police officers approached the room to investigate a report of the use of a stolen credit card. The district court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous. The court decided that the officers first saw the gun either when they looked through the motel room window or when a friend of the defendant opened the door in response to their knock, enabling them to see the gun from the threshold. In either case, the subsequent arrest and seizure of the shotgun was lawful. Once they saw the gun lying by his side, they had probable cause to arrest him for illegal possession. Even forcible entry would have been allowed. United States v. Hofman, 488 F.2d 287, 289 (5th Cir. 1974). Seizure of the gun was doubly justified because the weapon was an instrumentality of crime in plain view, United States v. Sherriff, 546 F.2d 604, 606-607 (5th Cir. 1977), which threatened danger to the arresting officers, United States v. Wysocki, 457 F.2d 1155, 1158-1161 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 145, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972).
AFFIRMED.