# Rent v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · February 12, 1954 · 209 F.2d 893

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444049

## Case

- **Full name:** RENT Et Al. v. UNITED STATES
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 12, 1954
- **Citations:** 209 F.2d 893
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Russell, Holmes, Rives
- **Cited by:** 71 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444049

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444049. Public record. Not legal advice.