Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. Charles T. Bennett, Wilbert Haywood, Elmer Jessup, Henry Stanton and Farris Thomas, 415 F.2d 1113, 2d Cir. (1969)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion regarding petitions for rehearing filed by the appellant Farris Thomas related to a prior court decision from 1969. The opinion discusses one point raised in the petitions regarding evidence obtained from a search of Thomas' bedroom after his arrest. While some of the items seized may have been allowed under the new ruling in Chimel v. California, the court denies having to decide that issue and does not apply Chimel retroactively, determining it should only apply prospectively based on considerations of its purpose, law enforcement reliance on prior standards, and effects on the administration of justice. The petitions for rehearing are ultimately denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Charles T. Bennett, Wilbert Haywood, Elmer Jessup, Henry Stanton and Farris Thomas, 415 F.2d 1113, 2d Cir. (1969)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    This document is a court opinion regarding petitions for rehearing filed by the appellant Farris Thomas related to a prior court decision from 1969. The opinion discusses one point raised in the petitions regarding evidence obtained from a search of Thomas' bedroom after his arrest. While some of the items seized may have been allowed under the new ruling in Chimel v. California, the court denies having to decide that issue and does not apply Chimel retroactively, determining it should only apply prospectively based on considerations of its purpose, law enforcement reliance on prior standards, and effects on the administration of justice. The petitions for rehearing are ultimately denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1969-10-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 415 F.2d 1113 Docket: 32336_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court opinion regarding petitions for rehearing filed by the appellant Farris Thomas related to a prior court decision from 1969. The opinion discusses one point raised in the petitions regarding evidence obtained from a search of Thomas' bedroom after his arrest. While some of the items seized may have been allowed under the new ruling in Chimel v. California, the court denies having to decide that issue and does not apply Chimel retroactively, determining it should only apply prospectively based on considerations of its purpose, law enforcement reliance on prior standards, and effects on the administration of justice. The petitions for rehearing are ultimately denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    9 views3 pages

    United States v. Charles T. Bennett, Wilbert Haywood, Elmer Jessup, Henry Stanton and Farris Thomas, 415 F.2d 1113, 2d Cir. (1969)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion regarding petitions for rehearing filed by the appellant Farris Thomas related to a prior court decision from 1969. The opinion discusses one point raised in the petitions regarding evidence obtained from a search of Thomas' bedroom after his arrest. While some of the items seized may have been allowed under the new ruling in Chimel v. California, the court denies having to decide that issue and does not apply Chimel retroactively, determining it should only apply prospectively based on considerations of its purpose, law enforcement reliance on prior standards, and effects on the administration of justice. The petitions for rehearing are ultimately denied.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    415 F.

    2d 1113

    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


    v.
    Charles T. BENNETT, Wilbert Haywood, Elmer Jessup, Henry
    Stanton and Farris Thomas, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 214-216.
    Docket 32327.
    Docket 32328.
    Docket 32336.

    United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.


    September 9, 1969.
    Certiorari Denied October 13, 1969.

    See 90 S.Ct. 113, 117.


    Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. (William J. Gilbreth and William B.
    Gray, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel), for appellee.
    Farris Thomas, pro se.
    Edward Bennett Williams, Patrick M. Wall and William E. McDaniels,
    Washington, D. C., for appellant Thomas.
    Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge, and
    FRANKEL, District Judge.*
    ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING OF DEFENDANT FARRIS
    THOMAS
    FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge:

    Leave to file out-of-time petitions for rehearing of our decision in 409 F.2d 888
    (2 Cir. 1969) was sought by appellant Farris Thomas pro se and later by
    counsel who had represented him on the appeal. We granted leave and

    requested the Government to answer.


    2

    The only point raised which merits discussion is that, in light of Chimel v.
    California, decided June 23, 1969, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685
    (1969), the address books containing Jessup's telephone numbers and the
    business card of Austin Burke found in various parts of Thomas' bedroom after
    his arrest and the letter found in Joyce Hoffman's pocketbook in the bedroom
    closet, see 409 F.2d at 895-897, should not have been received in evidence. It
    may be, as the Government suggests, that the warrantless search for and seizure
    of some or even all of these items would have been allowable under Chimel.
    However, we are not required either to decide on the Government's contention,
    which might necessitate further development of the facts, or to consider the
    possible application of the doctrine of harmless error as most recently
    explicated in Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d
    284 (1969). For, despite the Court's reluctance to decide the issue last spring,
    see Van Cleef v. New Jersey, 395 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 2051, 23 L.Ed.2d 728
    (1969), and Shipley v. California, 395 U.S. 818, 89 S.Ct. 2053, 23 L.Ed.2d 732
    (1969), we do not regard Chimel as applicable to searches (other than that in
    Chimel itself) prior to June 23, 1969.

    In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199
    (1967), the Court explained that in determining how far a newly announced
    constitutional rule of criminal procedure would be made prospective only,
    attention should be given to "(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards,
    (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old
    standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive
    application of the new standards." All three considerations point to making
    Chimel prospective in the full sense of Stovall and Desist v. United States, 394
    U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969), namely, "only to the petitioner
    involved in the case in which the new rule is announced and to all future cases
    in which the proscribed official conduct has not yet occurred." Desist v. United
    States, supra, 394 U.S. at 257, 89 S.Ct. at 1038 (dissenting opinion of Mr.
    Justice Harlan). See United States v. Hutto, 393 F.2d 783, 784 & n. 3 (4 Cir.
    1968). The purpose to be served by Chimel is deterrent; law enforcement
    officers had justifiably relied upon Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67
    S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947), and United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S.
    56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950);1 and the effect of retroactive application
    of Chimel on the administration of justice would thus be substantial even if this
    were limited to cases where the judgment had not become final. In contrast
    there is little to be said in favor of retroactivity under the standards the Court
    has announced. As pointed out in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 638, 639,
    85 S.Ct. 1731, 1742, 1743, 14 L.Ed. 2d 601 (1965), "there is no likelihood of

    unreliability or coercion present in a search-and-seizure case"; the exclusionary


    rule is but a "procedural weapon that has no bearing on guilt"; and "the fairness
    of the trial is not under attack." See Desist v. United States, supra, 394 U.S. at
    250-252, 89 S.Ct. 1030.
    The petitions for rehearing are denied. 2

    Notes:
    *

    Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation

    Although theChimel opinion notes that the Court's decisions on the permissible
    scope of a warrantless search "have been far from consistent," 395 U.S. at 755,
    89 S.Ct. 2034, the Court recognized that Harris and Rabinowitz were generally
    accepted as setting out the applicable standards.

    The sentence in the opinion reading, 409 F.2d at 897:


    "Here there was no `rummaging' through private papers; the letter was
    discovered in a lawful search of Joyce Hoffman's pocketbook for narcotics."
    should be modified by adding
    "and for communications indicating a connection with other conspirators
    similar to those that had been found in the case of other arrests."
    Our reference, of course, is to pre-Chimel law.

    You might also like