# United States v. Johnnie Mack Morgan (82-5441) and George Brooks, Jr. (82-5442), Defendants

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 3, 1985 · 744 F.2d 1215

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472680

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnnie MacK MORGAN (82-5441) and George Brooks, Jr. (82-5442), Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 3, 1985
- **Citations:** 744 F.2d 1215
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones
- **Judges:** Jones, Wellford, Harvey
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9472680

## Opinion text

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I fully join in the panel’s conclusion that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jacobsen, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 1652 , 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984), requires affirmance of the convictions in this case. I write separately, however, to express my belief that the panel has needlessly passed up an opportunity to clarify the law of this Circuit as it pertains to the issues of this case.
After our initial consideration of the issues presented by this appeal, the three judges on this panel reached three vastly different opinions. The “majority” opinion concluded that the seizure of the two vials containing narcotics was justified (1) under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement; (2) because exigent circumstances were present which obviated the need to obtain a search warrant; and (3) because the defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their personal luggage. The majority of the panel, however, actually rejected the first two contentions, i.e., that the seizure was justified by the plain view and exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Thus, the language in the “majority” opinion on these two issues does not even reach the level of dicta. The search was instead upheld on the sole ground that the defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their luggage, a conclusion in which I still cannot concur. Now, after consideration of the petition for rehearing the panel unanimously concludes that the seizure of the narcotics did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the scope of the *1225 agents’ search did not exceed the scope of the search conducted by the private carrier. The result is that we now have four vastly different opinions in this case.
This panel had a course of action to clear up what, in my view, has become an unnecessarily muddled picture. Keeping in mind our duty to the district courts and litigants below to define the law of the Sixth Circuit as clearly as possible, the panel could have decided this case on the narrow ground set forth in the order addressing the petition for rehearing and vacated the earlier opinions rendered in this appeal. See United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers v. NLRB, 462 F.2d 298, 300 (D.C.Cir.1972). This would have clarified the law of this Circuit infinitely more than did the course ultimately chosen. Yet, for unexplained reasons, the panel chose to do nothing more than enter this order in addition to the three opinions already filed. I would opt for vacating our earlier opinions and disposing of the case under the rationale of Jacobsen .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472680. Public record. Not legal advice.