# United States v. Lee Skipwith, III

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · June 14, 1973 · 482 F.2d 1272

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9459728

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee SKIPWITH, III, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 14, 1973
- **Citations:** 482 F.2d 1272; 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9404
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Simpson
- **Judges:** Aldrich, Simpson, Clark
- **Cited by:** 114 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/9459728

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that ____ inadvertent discovery of evidence of criminal activity in course of lawful security search for weapons at airport checkpoint does not violate Fourth Amendment
- holding that inadvertent discovery of evidence of criminal activity in course of lawful security search for weapons at airport checkpoint does not violate Fourth Amendment
- noting that modem technology permits hijacker to conceal plastic explosives in container no larger than a toothpaste tube

## Opinion text

SIMPSON, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
I concur in the disposition of this ease reached by Judge Clark’s opinion,, that the conviction stand affirmed.
If free to do so, I would adopt Judge Aldrich’s proposal that we refuse to permit the contraband seized to become the basis for prosecution. The protection of the travelling public from attempts at skyjacking demands that courts allow airport guards wide discretion in searching prospective passengers. Because this is so and to forestall abuse of that discretion by pretextual searches we should adopt a rule that forbids the evi-dentiary use of contraband other than weapons turned up as a by-product of such searches. In a word, I believe that Judge Aldrich’s position is both sound and salutary.
But I consider that while not directly, certainly by implication, our recent Moreno 1 and Legato 2 cases have rejected this approach. Moreno and Legato approve the use of contraband diseov- *1280 ered in an airport search of a prospective passenger for a weapon as the basis for conviction of possession of the contraband. Any holding that the contraband here although subject to seizure and condemnation should not have been made the basis for a conviction, is I think forbidden by Moreno and Legato.
Thus, while I would follow Judge Ald-rich’s solution if free to do so, I am constrained by Moreno to concur in the result reached by Judge Clark.
. United States v. Moreno, 475 F.2d 44 , 5 Cir. 1973.
. United States v. Legato, 408 F.2d 480 , 5th Cir. 1973.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9459728. Public record. Not legal advice.