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
On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
In our original opinion we stated:
“We find statutes authorizing the United States Marshals, Agents of the Federal Eureau of Investigation, and certain other federal officers, to make arrests without warrant in certain cases 18 U.S.C. §§ 3050 to 3054, inclusive. We do not find any such authority vested in an officer of the Bureau of Narcotics, 5 U.S. C.A. § 282 a(a) and (b). The Texas state statute, therefore, provides the standard by which the legality of these arrests must be measured. United States v. Di Re, supra, 338 U.S. at page 591, 68 S.Ct. 222 ; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15, note 5 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 . The Texas statutes permit any peace officer to arrest an offender for felony committed in his presence or within his view, or when he has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and there is no time to procure a warrant of arrest. Articles 212 and 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of Texas. We hold that the arrests of both defendants were legal.”
Appellee properly points out that in the recent opinion of the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Jones, 204 F.2d 745 , that Court examined thoroughly into the derivation of authority of the Bureau of Narcotics, and concluded: “The authority conferred by the various statutes evinces, we think, a *901 clear intent to include the arrest of offenders.” 204 F.2d 745 , at page 754.
We do not find it necessary to reconcile a conflict possibly apparent between that case and our opinion. There is no real conflict; the question is academic inasmuch as we held that in any event the arrests of both defendants were legal.
Upon careful consideration of this and the other grounds of the petition, neither of the judges who concurred in the original decision thinks that a rehearing should be granted, and the same is therefore
Denied.