Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

402 F.2d 296

Docket No. 26201.

Chamblee v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 28, 1968.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1968-10-28

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1968

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2312

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Nicholson v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1968-10-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*297Trammell F. Shi, Macon, Ga., for appellant.

¶2Floyd Buford, U.S. Atty., Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for appellee.

¶3Before BELL and MORGAN, Circuit Judges and GUINN, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Appellant was convicted of transporting a stolen automobile in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C.A. section 2312. He complains of the failure of the court to suppress or exclude certain evidence obtained from him or from the automobile in question. The basis of the complaint is an illegal arrest or an illegal search by state officers or both. In our view there was adequate cause for the arrest and the searches were incident to the arrest. Nicholson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 355 F.2d 80.

¶6There is no merit in the additional- contention of a Fifth Amendment violation within the teaching of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602,16 L.Ed.2d 694. The evidence of transportation of the automobile by appellant in interstate commerce and knowledge on his part that the automobile was stolen was ample.

¶7Affirmed.

/402/f2d/296 · .json · Public domain