Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

358 F.2d 139

Docket No. 22773.

Johnson v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 17, 1966.

Certiorari Denied June 6, 1966.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1966-03-17

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““* * * The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the District Court erred in admitting into evidence certain articles found in an automobile by postal inspectors after the automobile had been lawfully repossessed by appellant’s mortgagee who granted permission to search it without a warrant. “Appellant contends that under the laws of Texas legal title to the automobile was still in his name; therefore, the postal inspectors were required to obtain his permission for a warrantless Search. The Government contends that the mortgagee had lawful possession of the vehicle; therefore, permission of the mortgagee rendered the search lawful. “The person in lawful possession of an automobile has authority to grant permission to search it. None of appellant’s constitutional liberties were violated in the circumstances. “See Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); Parr v. United States, 255 F.2d 86 (5 Cir. 1958). * * Johnson v. United States, 358 F.2d 139, 140 (5th Cir. 1966).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Fassler

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1708

Relies on Abel v. United States · Parr v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1966-03-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 1981

12 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

100196619701980decided

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 →

¶1See 86 S.Ct. 1879.

¶2*140O. H. Harris, William D. Watts, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

¶3Robert S. Travis, B. H. Timmins, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys. Ft. Worth, Tex., Melvin M. Diggs, U. S. Atty., for appellee

¶4Before GEWIN and THORNBERRY, Circuit Judges, and WEST, District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6The appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas of unlawful possession of stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1708. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the District Court erred in admitting into evidence certain articles found in an automobile by postal inspectors after the automobile had been lawfully repossessed by appellant’s mortgagee who granted permission to search it without a warrant.

¶7Appellant contends that under the laws of Texas legal title to the automobile was still in his name; therefore, the postal inspectors were required to obtain his permission for a warrantless search. The Government contends that the mortgagee had lawful possession of the vehicle; therefore, permission of the mortgagee rendered the search lawful

¶8 The person in lawful possession of an automobile has authority to grant permission to search it. None of appellant’s constitutional liberties were violated in the circumstances. See Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); Parr v. United States, 255 F.2d 86 (5 Cir. 1958). The judgment is affirmed.

/358/f2d/139 · .json · Public domain