holding that if the defendant's arrest was illegal, then his subsequent oral denial of ownership was tainted and could not be considered
How later courts described this case
- holding that if the defendant's arrest was illegal, then his subsequent oral denial of ownership was tainted and could not be considered
- stating that the court cannot consider “tainted” acts that “may have been brought by unlawful police conduct”
- noting voluntary abandonment deprives individual of standing to challenge subsequent search and seizure
- no abandonment when defendant dropped suitcase in airport and walked three steps away when addressed by DEA agents
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent only from that part of the opinion holding that the district court was required to find that the informant’s reliability and the reliability of the information that she gave was sufficiently corroborated to supply probable cause for Jackson’s arrest. Although I disagree with the clearly erroneous standard of review that the majority of this court adopted in United States v. Hart (9th Cir. en banc 1976) 546 F.2d *412 798, 804 (Hufstedler, J., dissenting), this panel is bound by the Hart rule. If Hart is to be applied to this situation, as the majority assumes, then I cannot agree that the district court’s decision on the reliability issues can be overturned. The majority opinion simply substitutes its appraisal of the corroborative evidence for the district court’s. Moreover, as the majority acknowledges, the “verified bits did not relate directly to the criminal activity.” Corroboration of innocuous details will not pass the Aguilar-Spinelli test. (Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 ; Aguilar v. Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 ; United States v. Larkin (9th Cir. 1974) 510 F.2d 13 .)