356 F.2d 470 - Leeks v. United States — 356 F.2d 470

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably Corngold v. United States (1966), Alexander v. United States (1966)

26 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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.

¶1 *471Frank A. St.Sure, San Diego, Cal., for appellant.

¶2Manuel L. Real, U. S. Atty., John K. Van De Kamp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., J. Brin Schulman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Asst. Chief, Crim. Div., Phillip W. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

¶3Before CHAMBERS, BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges.

¶4CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.

¶5We uphold as a border search the search of Leeks’ automobile about fifteen miles north of the border point of entry of San Ysidro, California. The enterprise of officers “tailing” Leeks was continuous from the time Leeks crossed the border until he was stopped by the command of customs officers. (There was a shift in who pursued Leeks, brought about by intercommunication of officers over their radios.) Although there was a period when Leeks, as he drove, may have been momentarily out of the sight of all of the officers, there was no break in the continuity of the project of the officers following him. We deem the case governed by Hurst v. United States, 9 Cir., 344 F.2d 327; King v. United States, 9 Cir., 348 F.2d 814; and Murgia v. United States, 9 Cir., 285 F.2d 14.

¶6In holding that the search was a border search, it necessarily follows that the seizure of the narcotics was valid.

¶7We deem that the affidavit of bias by which appellant attempted to remove the trial judge after the process of adjudication had begun was too conclusionary in nature to require a consideration on the merits by any judge. Thus, we find no error in the judge keeping the case through judgment.

¶8Affirmed.