# United States v. Richard Lawrence Wellins

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 24, 1981 · 654 F.2d 550

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842954

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard Lawrence WELLINS, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 24, 1981
- **Citations:** 654 F.2d 550; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18289
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schroeder
- **Judges:** Trask, Schroeder, Carroll
- **Cited by:** 52 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/9842954

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a defendant’s consultation with his attorney was a “crucial factor” in determining that the defendant validly consented to a search of his hotel suite
- finding prior illegal "protective sweep" of hotel suite did not taint defendant's consent to search because defendant "had been permitted to consult with his attorney immediately prior to consenting to the search"
- noting that "there were no threats or misrepresentations made which would have induced [the defendant's] consent" (emphasis supplied)

## Opinion text

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In my view, the district court properly considered the relevant factors in deciding that the consent was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal police conduct for fourth amendment purposes. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 216-18 , 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2258-59 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); United States v. Perez-Esparza, 609 F.2d 1284, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 1979). I see no reason to disturb the district court’s determination, or to require a new consideration of the evidence. I would therefore affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842954. Public record. Not legal advice.