Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

237 F.2d 789

Docket No. 13369.

Williams v. United States

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Sept. 14,1956.

Decided Oct. 11, 1956.

Petition for Rehearing In Banc Denied Nov. 27, 1956.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1956-10-11

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“illegal because (it was) without a warrant, without probable cause, and without other validating circumstances,”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Moss v. Cox, 44 Ala. App. 491 - Maples v. State

““In a pre-trial motion to suppress appellant had disclaimed ownership of the capsules. But when his objection to their admission was renewed and acted upon at the trial itself the unchallenged testimony of the prosecution showed that the capsules were in appellant’s possession until he dropped them, thus giving him standing to object.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Christensen v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1956-10-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 1981 · most notably City of St. Paul v. Vaughn (1975), Commonwealth v. Pollard (1973)

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions

2201956196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Yale Kamisar, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for appellant.

¶2Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. -

¶3Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The arrest of appellant was illegal because without a warrant, without probable cause, and without other validating circumstances.1 The government does not seriously contend otherwise. A cigarette package containing capsules which in turn contained contraband narcotics was procured by the officers, who had appellant in custody, when he dropped the package in a corridor of the precinct station shortly after his arrest and when it seemed clear he was to be searched. The contraband capsules were admitted in evidence. Since they were procured as a result of the illegal arrest the motion for their suppression made at the trial should have been granted. In a pre-trial motion to suppress appellant had disclaimed ownership of the capsules. But when his objection to their admission was renewed and acted upon at the trial itself the unchallenged testimony of the prosecution showed that the capsules were in appellant’s possession until he dropped them, thus giving him standing to object.

¶6Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

/237/f2d/789 · .json · Public domain