# United States v. John Alfred Hamilton

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 18, 1974 · 490 F.2d 598

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460206

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. John Alfred HAMILTON, Defendant, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 18, 1974
- **Citations:** 490 F.2d 598
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Choy
- **Judges:** Choy, Aldrich, Ely
- **Cited by:** 13 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/9460206

## Opinion text

CHOY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. I would sustain as not clearly erroneous the district court’s factual finding that there was probable cause for the warrantless search. Costello v. United States, 324 F.2d 260, 261 (9th Cir. 1963), cert, denied, 376 U.S. 390 , 84 S.Ct. 699 , 11 L. Ed.2d 650 (1964).
Not only was the informant of proven reliability, but also his information was corroborated by government agents (Fernán and Salinas) before Agent Salinas made any attempt to lift the ply-board sheet covering the false compartment in the pickup truck-bed to smell the marijuana. The corroborative facts preceding the search and the reasonable inferences therefrom are:
The well-described truck, which the informant indicated had a false compartment in its bed containing a quantity of marijuana, was parked where the informant said it was.
The plyboard cover to the false compartment in the open truckbed was clearly visible.
Fernán inspected the truck where it was originally parked and saw the false cover.
Salinas saw the plyboard cover and recognized it as covering the false compartment before he raised it.
I find this case indistinguishable from Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1958). I would not second guess the district judge and say he was clearly erroneous. We are concerned here with whether there was probable cause to search, not with whether a prima facie case to convict for possession of 264 pounds of marijuana was established before Salinas made the search.
I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460206. Public record. Not legal advice.