unlawful to search at 10:30 A.M. a car impounded at 1:00 A.M. after an arrest at midnight
How later courts described this case
- unlawful to search at 10:30 A.M. a car impounded at 1:00 A.M. after an arrest at midnight
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RUSSELL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Following Rent’s arrest, which we all agree was a legal one, the automobile was on the street without its owner or any caretaker. It was only proper that the officers take possession of it. Such possession was therefore entirely legal whether or not it be considered the consequence of the seizure of a car. Vagueness as to the time of actual seizure of the car is immaterial. The statute requires no precise ritual of seizure. Under all of the circumstances of this case, the delay in making search for the fruits and evidence of the crime for which Rent had been arrested, did not, in my opinion, require the trial court to find that the search was unreasonable as a matter of law. As to whether Curry "possessed” the marihuana cigarette which he picked up from the ground, I think the question was properly submitted to the jury for determination and, possession being adjudged, there arose the statutory presumption of guilt, which was in no way controverted. 26 U.S.C.A. § 2593 (a). Compare Aeby v. United States, 5 Cir., 206 F.2d 296 ; Henderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 206 F.2d 300 .