# Melvin Corngold v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 29, 1966 · 367 F.2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452220

## Case

- **Full name:** Melvin CORNGOLD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 29, 1966
- **Citations:** 367 F.2d 1; 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4865
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Duniway
- **Judges:** Barnes, Chambers, Duniway, Hamley, Jertberg, Merrill, Koelsch, Browning, Ely
- **Cited by:** 162 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/9452220

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding “joint endeavor” subject to Fourth Amendment where private party’s purpose was solely to assist federal agents, and agents helped open boxes and inspect contents
- holding that search by private individual at government request was not a "private search"
- noting that the government requested a private person to open a package in a particular person’s possession
- affirming the suppression of evidence where an FBI agent stopped and searched the vehicle of an alien to determine whether the car had been stolen

## Opinion text

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
Like my Brother BARNES, I concur in Part I of the majority opinion. I also agree with Part IV of the opinion of Judge BARNES. I think that when the parcels were left with the airline under an agreement which empowered the airline to open them, appellant surrendered his right of privacy as to those parcels, and that it was perfectly proper for government agents to ask airline employees to exercise their authority in aid of the government’s law enforcement activities. I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452220. Public record. Not legal advice.