# Jurisdictional Statement — Catanzaro v. Hart Electronics Corp.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1752%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement
- **Published:** January 1, 1984
- **Citation:** 465 U.S. 1070

## Text

Aid a | 8 ‘Peis: =
—_ - 4
JAN 2 5.1984
Orricc ur THE CLERK
2 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ee
35 October Term, 1984
4 a
5 NO. 83 - 6156.
6 ROBERT CARLTON ENRIGHT, Appéllant
7 -Vv-
8 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellee
9 Siiaieectanesaiea aie
10 ON APPEAL FROM THE
COURT CF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIOFNRIA,
11 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
12 xs : 7a
13
14
15
16
17 JOHN P. KEMNOSIAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
18 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
7080 Hollywood Boulevard
19 Suite 307
Hollywood, California 90028
ee (213) 466-4525
21
Counsel for Appellant,
22 ROBERT CARLTON ENRIGHT
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
it

|| ' \ ,
INDEX
1K
2 » Page
3 Question Presented ..ccccccccccccssccessccevsessccsee rae |
4 ODANION cccccsccccvccvccsccnceccesecscccvecececcceoes 1
5 PEO ROCEION 6 cide 66 6e bees RE CORES 6S OER OL EOS OSS eS 1
6 Sonesetitautional ProviSionsS OGNG Bale cde scsseseussesass 2
7 Raising the Federal Question .... cere eecceeecccccces 2
8 Statesent of Che CASO
ry

area which will once and for all settle the question. The issue
Yresented by this Appeal appears to be the only border search
issue which has not been decided by the United States Supreme
Court.

It is also urged that the court consider additionally the
fact that in this case the Appellant was removed fromthe other
passengers -and taken to a Secondary station approximately 100 yardgq
away, Out a door and down some stairs. At the time that Appellant
was removed from the other 50 or 60 passengers, there should at
that time have been probable cause to conduct any search.

United States v. Place, v7.8. (1983)

Florida v. Royer, U.S. (1983)

",..in short, we hold that the detention of
Respondent's luggage in this case went beyond
the narrow authority possessed by police to
detain briefly luggage reasonable suspected to

contain narcotics." (See Place supra).

Royer, supra, held that the police had exceeded the limits

of an investigative stop where they asked the defendant to accom-
pany them to a small police room and retained his ticket and
drivers’ license and indicated in no way that he was free to de-
pert. 7

It is submitted that once there is a separation of the person
under investigation from other members of the general public
that such a further detention or search must be based upon

consent or probable cause. See, United States +. Brignoni-Ponce,

422, U.S. 873 (1975).
CONCLUSION
The legislative history confirms the premise that the
congress that enacted the Fourth Amendment never intended to
allow customs officials freedom to search indiscriminately merely

because a border had been crossed. To conclude otherwise is to

it hk

bd yew EY

“treat individuals today by a different standard without the same
Protections granted by the First Congress. The intent of the
legislature is clear from an examination of the history of the

two federal statutes in question. To give force to one statute

while ignoring the other is to select terms from an act of oongudill

that conveniently justify acts of government officials and to dis-

miss the expressed protections granted by the same act.

Other than in dicta, the United States Supreme Court deci-
sions have supported the fact that absent a "reason to suspect",

a search will not be permitted. The conflict within the Circuit
Court of Appeal and the uneven application of federal law cannot
be totally rerationalized.

Due to the fact that there is no United States Supreme Court
case in point and the further fact that the Circuit Courts of
Appeal are divided and also because 19 U.S.C. 8 482 has been
applied as recently as Ramsey, this court should note probable

jurisdiction of this Appeal.
Respectfully Submitted,

JOHN P. KENOSIAN

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
7080 Hollywood Boulevard,
Suite 307

Hollywood, California 90028

/ Counsel for Appellant *
DATED: January 18, 1984 :

4 >

OO

: O ©)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

X
» IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, } 2 CRIM. NO. 43532
Plaintiff and ) (Super.Ct.No. A-900448)
Appellant, )
‘ COURT OF APPEAL-SECOND pIST,
ROBERT CARLTON ENRIGHT and ) F l LL E D
Defendants and ) SLAY ROBBINS, JR. Clare’
Respondents. )
) Deputy Clerk

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Judge. Reversed.

Robert H. Philibosian, District Attorney (Los Angeles
County), Donald J. Kaplan and George M. Palmer, Deputy
District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

John P. Kenosian under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent Robert Carlton Enright.

Kim H. Pearman, for Defendant and Respondent Henning
Reimer.

Appen@ix "A"

la

X The People appeal the order dismissing an information
which charged respondents with the illegal importation of
cocaine entered after the court granted respondents' motion to
suppress evidence. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352; Pen. Code,

§ 1538.5.) Appellant contends: "The trial court erred in
suppressing the evidence. Customs officers at an
international border (or its functional equivalent) may search
a person and the person's effects without any cause
whatsoever, solely on the basis that the person is entering
the United States from a foreign country. Moreover, the
evidence shows there was ‘reasonable cause’ to search
defendants and their personal effects."

The motion to suppress was submitted upon the
preliminary examination transcript. The record establishes
that on December 31, 1981, respondents Robert Erright and
Henning Reimer arrived at Los Angeles International Airport by
means of an international flight from Lima, Peru. As they
proceeded through Customs, the Treasury Enforcement Computer
System (TECS) revealed that respondents were each suspected to
be in possession of cocaine. An inspection of the contents of
respondent Reimer's handluggage uncovered 807 grams of cocaine
contained within the covers of an "extremely heavy" photograph
elbum that smelled of fresh glue, and 1.34 grams of the

substance within Enright's handluggage. The trial court

lb

> € }

granted the motion to suppress the evidence because the
computer information was insufficient to warrant the search of
the luggage. |

Appellant's contention that the trial court erred in
granting the motion to suppress is well taken. It is settled
that reasonable grounds to search a person or inspect his
personal effects at an international vort of entry is
established solely by reason of the entry into the United
States from a foreign country. (United States v. Ramsey
(1977) 431 U.S. 606, 616-617; United States v. Sandler (5th
Cir. 1981) 644 F.2d 1163; People v. Duncan (1974) 40
Cal.App.3d 940, 945; see, 19 U.S.C. §&§ 482, 1582.)

The justification for inspection of respondents'
handluggage was not dependent upon the information obtained by
the customs inspectors from the Treasury Enforcement Computer

System. (Cf. United States v. Gallagher (4th Cir. 1977) 557

F.2d 1041, 1043, cert. den. Gallagher v. United States (1977)

434 U.S. 870.) The reasonableness of the inspection of the
contents of respondents' handluggage was established solely by
the undisputed evidence that respondents had arrived in the
United States from a foreign country at an established port of
entry, and were subjected to a permissible, reasonable search

of the luggage. (United States v. Sandler, supra, 644 F.2d at

le

- 7

O | oO

¥
1
1165-8168; cf. People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 597.)

The order granting the motion to suppress evidence is
reversed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

HANSON (Thaxton), J.

We concur:

SPENCER, P.J.

LILLIE, J.

).

As the content of the computer entry reiating to
respondents’ suspected narcotic activity was extraneous to the
justification for a search of respondents' ts Sa the

decision in People v. Ramirez (Crim. 24489, Sept. 1983) A
Cal. 3d (Slip opn., pp. 19-21) referred to by a
respondents’ “counsel during oral argument, is not in point.

1d

¥

1
2
3
os
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20 |
21 |
22 |

4
23 |
24
25
26
27
28

Rosert CARLTON ENRIGHT, Appellant

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellee

e ©

In the Court of Appeal of the
State of California, ;
Second Appellate Listrict

-v- 2 Grim. Bo. 43532

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES

Notice is hereby given that ROBERT CARLTON ENRIGHT, The

Appellant above-named, hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of the

United States from the final order of the Court of Appeal of the

State of California, Second Appellate District dated November 23,

1983.

This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $8 1257 (1).

JOHN P. KENOSIAN

JOHN P. KENOSIAN, Attorney for
Appellant

Appendix "B"
2a

Cate

f

Oo or no Ff &F D FH

bo) YD DY WY WD WD WD WD FP HY HP HP BP BP BY ee
©NY OF HO Fed eYF OC HO OBR AO eww KY OO

(PC OF OF SERVICE BY MAIL~--1Q" *a, 2015.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS manetins =

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county
droresaid; I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party
to the within entitled action; my business address is 7080 Hollywood

Boulevard, Suite 307 Hollywood, California 40028.

On January 19, 1984 I served the within NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES on the interested parties in sai
action, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelop
with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at

Hollywood, California addressed as follows:

Otrice of the District Attorney
18000 Criminal Court Building
210 West Temple Street

Los Angeles, California 90012

Office of the Attorney General
3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 800
Los Angeles, California 90010

Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District
3580 Wilshire Blvd., Room 301
Los Angeles, California 90010

Judge Edward A. Hinz, Jr.
Superior Court of Torrance
Attention: Department K
825 Maple Avenue

Torrance, California 90503

Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

'
I declare (or certify), under penalty of perjury, that the foregoind
is true and correct. “

Executed on January 19, 1984, at Los Angeles, California

JOHN P. KENOSIAN

JOHN P. KENOSIAN

2b

= = %

EE ee

o onroaweFrt & dD FY

=)
oO

11
12

13:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

=—_
oo

. 4

~—-
be

In the Supreme Court of the
State of California

{ ROBERT CARLTON ENRIGHT, Appellant

» -v- No. 2 Crim #43532

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellee

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Notice is hereby given that ROBERT CARLTON ENRIGHT, the
Appellant above-named, hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of the
United States from the final order of the Supreme Court of
California, denying a hearing in the case on November 23, 1983 and
affirming the judgment of conviction entered herein on September
28, 1983 by the Court of apBeal in the State of California, Second
Appellate District.

This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8 1257 (1).

JOHN P. KENOSIAN, Attorney for
Appellant

Appendix "C”

o oroauw f f ND

~ YY YY YY YP PP YY
oor nanerer BO WH KF O

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

~e-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County

aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a part
to the within entitled action; my business address is 7080 Holl
Boulevard, Suite 307, Hollywood, California 90028.

On January 19, 1984, I served the within NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES on the interested parties in said
action, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in the sealed envelope
with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at
Hollywood, California addressed as follows:

Office of the District Attorney

18000 Criminal Courts Building

210 West Temple Street

Los Angeles, California 90012

Office of the Attorney General

3580 Wilshire Blvd., Room 800

Los Angeles, California 90010

Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District

3580 Wilshire Blvd., Room 301

Los Angeles, California 90010

Judge Edward A. Hinz, Jr.

Superior Court of Torrance

Attention: Department K

825 Maple Avenue

Torrance, California 90503

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

I declare (or certify), under penalty of perjury, ghethe foregoing

is ture and correct.

Executed on January 19, i984, at Los Angeles, California.

JOHN P. KENOSIAN

JOHN P. KENOSIAN

3b

o onrt’oeoeaer a@« wn Fe

RBBES SERS &B BU HE SC

——— ~ aA ek Ak eS Oo

17

S$sSssps sek BRE

se

RECEIVED
JAN 2 5: 1984

OFFICE OF THE CLERR
SUPREME COURT. U.S.

IN THE

“ve

\ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1984

NO. 83 - 6] 56
ROBERT CARLTON ENRIGHT, Appellant

Vv.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellee

AFFIDAVIT

I, Robert Carlton Enright, being first duly sworn according to
law, depose and say, in support of my Motion for leave to proceed
without being required to prepay costs or fees: 1. I am the Appel-
lant in the above-entitled case. 2. Because of my poverty I am
unable to pay the costs of said cause. 3. I am unable to give
security for the same. 4. I believe that I am entitled to the red-
ress I seek in said case. 5. The nature of the case is briefly
stated as follows:

I was stopped and searched by customs officials at the Los
Angeles International Airport witout probably cause or a reasonable
suspicion that I wae carrying contraband. The case against me was
dismissed by the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles on
October 1, 198? because of an illegal search and seizure.

On September 28, 1983 the Court of Appeal of the State of
California, Second Appellate District reversed the dismissal of the
instant case by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and on
November 28, 1983 the Supreme Court of the State of California denied
a hearing in my case. The illegality of the search and seizure is
4/}/1
L440)

4/731

o onro2eaer® a db we

a Se ee ee ee ee ee ee
© orton rk wan KF O

21

OD

yaised in this appeal.

%

Duly witnessed and sworn to

Gay of January, 1984.

ROBERT CARLTON ENRIGHT

bet beng EI
ar a
before me, a Notary Public, this he La

PUBL

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1752%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.