Appendix — Charles v. United States (No. 118)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOK THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMES J) CHARI ES 5

; is pe A. , Lte477

" f Mas 4 1960)

J

: :

Appeai from the United States Distries Cour

:

for the Dustriet of Hawai

£

caaye -

‘ ° ter t .

tore CTAMBERS BONE avd VER ; ar) binedges

, - J

ONE. t iret? J iedaure

Yen (Pee nt a a eerie . 9 : ye Te .

peeulal STHETIEN ¢ end vs i ‘ raf i ‘

His eRiraina urlawls) aeduisitven ane) it Tistteot Papaya re td)

. ;

T Marijuana risk taper” persel med fw Mounts eantaining

ear lars tt reared tt eeretiel Ra Liseuveteal i tis

“irs \ ‘ . ri Peer i r .? ; t. wae ot ‘ ® » ‘ Ler

ie } ‘ pred ‘ i ; » Wey

tier? j me tout jhe? er veer ats . “at ? Pi ge Were sane i Vie } ’

Pees ahd seizures Which violated the Fourth Amerelment

°

Z.° 9 ’ ;

rive Members of tue Honebilu Poles Department arrested ay

toes cle 4 ‘ ° td “ene enn ae 4

aq) i ‘ aimed ; ~ Tyeetiie ij on ve NGPPALIS SWeort: sig .

je : wh ,

S wite charging threatening and -asssult and battery. Appellare

Witecf the Meise instele the hopes w he read the warrants

» ,

le wee Pinker] ey se ENO aNd sented ¢ h, harmed \ otpatr

e . ‘

POT WAN SUMP Piees KR ip f werner Otnesot the Aficers

-* fro] a it . Ww I ’ Tre is i ' Lf oad fPyy ‘jf ra

immune ariivatia in the nor Aro ey tala a are mpanied Appel

re Ss SISter? m-laiw tte r? tijwe ° ai? iP ergy teble im armjer ft

’ ati iyi? se a SSeS s ; THetr ree? i or te #¥5 she i atinte es

“ 4 et

Tier oMmeer that PAM Was Silpepeesct] ter f e mariyuana «ar

't | oe.

SPE SO, Apipe OPlt We Tools] ter @rryret 5 CRETS OF The Kitehet

=

.

“

‘ “.

* . . ted

a

*

° .

_

" : -

, Jicntes Charles Is .

* ° 28 i P ‘ nea Noam te Sut? & «lke ot

F Vrni st hie art “les % yicheteed Mm Sta'st. 4 Tie its packe

re sey

! iitia! %} yet : Wiis Tt ! rested fer Tle ' il pas

: . . . ’ ‘

esston of Bareuties, aki siphineegiied seareh 1 the premises re

mo, % sereceotied prcketine nm. the sara bhe offteers a qdoliot fave

« searet Warrant

ices vais a tluve pronted: areument, He: centends

‘ , A

ae falfie with % endnussibility oof evidenee obtained

va t

ee Ae cis ay MIUTIOIDALIEY cite Che. Theh LePPOEN: 0

’ ‘ - oct

1} Ciall cafe } waniit? ja? i t rie ant Wiaeks \ | Hidtead

: e

perce pom ss oc P14: tather than: the seca of USVet

% ,_)

‘ . ‘ ’ ’ Yoves? ‘ . j i; Lustig \ | riltenal s fuss, >”

= * .: > NM in

fo aa it yea Pi beta! USI ocapepee i! to eTmpTN. OIS

om .

5 ;

tetaty tat the offieers etigaged tm am Unlawhl

' ‘ ’ Pe re | ‘ ‘ 41) tts. ‘

\ Bait of tinted Peed rewederit ” ‘ welt uals

°

| ' rt 4 two warrints Tor threat see kde ctssadll

1 bal ef te Thete WA : pepootvatite titles ts intrest!

eam + ‘ reper ’ ’ . 4% bias foeee kets fol the

°

. ’ oe | * 4), ee hate ? 1 yrrrt rie

\ ms 0, ) ’ ‘ s re | ‘ }* te tants D| al

yar Ss operseat ! S BAPRRY iS: ahs sierdeRt Thereul

Ws Ue ae Lt i 8 That Latina Werte pape Laie eorol adler

Ai 3 [9 ae Wee ‘Ke

‘ tis ' We Piel itilieuesnt Peo cgevte PPE Walbetsi thi

ji

, . : : ,

rw! rip a NN A hit territeria UW ehtoreentel atheers

“e@- ‘ ‘

F a F

. aired cont rayentis e Rott Amieidtien

e x P :

t : t t wa TPom ap perlany spies Wiis

Pi ;

“iy is teal e ostatise eget ’ ee GLY | i ASL TERAAT baie prans x

; . eye | A Wen th aE nahling the peliee te

? ~ . Gisedeu a; ee re Gs moylase® biel tibia j i

. Petiuiciat | PMT pine oo dine Turthuer evidetie:

t ’ ; " i ti | ! ’ ‘ wy arse vit bak sey

’ . . bec. 2 hh )

ani? packiwe af tuitijuana, Harris vo United States, 391

a ‘ ; sme Snap tt a

1 < ie pe Jord Led SATE i. Peytpeow i? ee tes vt 1

‘ Y ; ;

Lhe A Ue SEALER Pea Covet Px. Williams v. United

TUR ec cataned End searthy eT ipa 31 Se Bek Gye PRA ert. clenied, 4-25-60)

Is ix Devore dispute that an officer making a valid arrest ma

. eal the pebwon oof “he declsed as an mehlent of tis arres

e

[‘ ta platter ° seutrine Ss eurrentiv tncer Tre Conmipare

; ; ~, : ns : .

H \ ' ail Shuates tht! uci cove on uw Seas) Wath Lnite

: ‘ ul Pe Pike ath ee wa) \ pertinent Sper

‘ . * ay? od Bh a) ] ~ ‘thy y *Trantiy eertrerani

e

ed States, 296 Fad 173, (9th Cir. 1995) .

: | ‘

. °

l nated Stags of Amertcoa

Weeks \ | Nite] States, stra, at 302. Carroll y. United States,

ns Hod A Cae es at ae 125 Avnella vw Pniited States, JOO US. Qa.

nel ie hae

Courts tive historically

jermidted such a seareh for

ener of redisetis. Classen v. -Merrison, 47 NPI 482. (1867

proteet attbesting

woofliver, fotdeprive.prisoner of meahs of. es-

rape: Reatstvder v hee. 44 lowa lol 1qes

to nvotd dest rue-

Hho evidere [See Enited States v.

Rabinowitz, supra at 72

OBrien, 1 Cox Crim. Cas. 245

eh. Drelamd (ss?) Here the

seabed, wl apephed

lissetiting opinions. Dilbon +.

rerord clearly shows that. the

nts parkets Wits Asizueil TO UneOver nareotios

; ‘ . o

Wis hot yer ander arrest on nibeoties charges.

PY) cof dyerg’ Works, tly PULP Pras uy ft

THe oseavele, Was to cbyiiaat evidener

cnet ; | +

feolierty Gapopmet ham

dQoemhie different from, that for wetiieti appellatit was arrested

SOaArTCH ile relbart's PePenintstess rovoned by

H SCH Gb PUP pose

deb Steutte the Fourth Amendtent. United States vo Lefkowitz,

er N 462 CISD oe Bart Paperting Co, +. United States, 22

Si ae Oyo preblens here is whether or not the second

Mos jersem Wits simdlariy invalidated because ‘the

eoWete oseunipae te obtain evidener oY a erime Uineharged

sstirediy, io seen Searen) ool a pellanit’s Peisom tor eoneedtled.

.

AY ' ts Ea }

hipets. Haprevita tpout tin: earlier, desultory “frisking” weuld

Wopomate: cor stituatbonal Sthiet ures, b

Serre ~ } oh a

Wiobeth the person arrested amdsthe place where the

restismade derive their legality. in the dbsenee of a seareh war

MT dn Tee Nistenee af a lawful arrest, Wiytiiout probable cause to

est, subseuaient searches eit} Sun oor preperty viodite

Barth Amendment That a

t

mat do seated is mehdent to a Vaatid

rest saves HW treat proseription The apparent reasoning behind

Soprinciple os that enee a yalid arrest is made. the privaev at

tetas has pet th Most part bher lawfully a stroved. Furthet

Sieh caumerte pwith and justified by the faet of arrest should”

Pit be mrcelueded Aeeor dingy. @osearehoot the place of arrest for

ldehee ef othe ceriine fur Whiel the

aeeised has been arrested

permissible. Hewever. if poliee aetion is net Justified byw or

mineeted with the arrest, suchas when a’ search of the place of

test ts designed to vimeover evidenes ofa crime other than the

Gpeom whieh the arrest was made. the turther intrusion wen

mivaey cannot be tolerated. When a seareh has nothing to des

The arrest. it eannot he deesied inetdent to the aeeused's

wv

feo

“ties, Custody must of necessity: be asserted, initially over What-

»

+ James D. Charles u's.

apprapension. Divorced from the seareh, the fact of arrest does

hot justify impairment of the right to privacy. :

On the other hand, it seems te us that a search of the person

of the aceused, even for the purpose of uncovering evidence of a-

ermme other than that whielies charged, is generaliy ineident to a

valid arrest. Power over the body of the aceused iS the essence

af his arkest: the two eannot be separated., Te say that the police

may eurtail the hberty of the aceused but retrain from impinging

Upon tye sanctity of bis poekets except jor enumerated reasons Is

to igure the custodial duties which'detolve upon arresting author-

ever the arrested pare Has dh Us posse ssiom at the time of ap pre:

Hension. Onee the ” body of. the r eee ‘used * is validly subjee ted to the

Saas tL dominion of the law, inspections of his person, regardless

ase, eannot be deemed unlawtul, see* P eO}) les vi ( ‘hiagles,

“03 Py NOEL Ss3 1982s). unless they violate the dietates

a

A ~

Sed

ef reason either beeause of their number or their manner of per

petration 2 Henes, we pink that the second search of appellant's

person Was permissible ufffer the Fourth Amendment, and the

packet of marijuana thereby obtained’ was properly admitted: inte

evidenee Consequently, as previously noted, the seareh for ‘the

second package was alse lawtub, and it teo Was properly seized

ond eorreetly admitted in evidence,

deciding as we de, we need not determine whether or tot

i police officers, having lawfully entered appellant's house at his

invitation, had probable cause to arrest him for a Lareotles viola

SMeefern police pre tieé ealis ter a thorough seareh at the station-

ose 6) any percon Whee ist aken into custeds as well as the ‘*tmsking™’

Whey takes place at the. imement ot arrest. see, Honolulu Police De

rfirsenit,. Cietnernt Orders at t. So (1997): San Francesco Poliee en

intent Rules and Proeelures, 6) 12.47-12.57; United States Marshal

Manual at yp. TObOT, Cahalane, Tie Pohceman’s Gintide at p. 11S (1952)

skelait. Modern DPotree Work at tie, BA7 (1989). Suvh searehes’ are hel

ureasonables thes ate at ritegr ih “pant ot efficent police procedur

evitle «. Uirrited States, 22V F.2d 44 clerk Cir. 2551. We

thar cer eatbseed raat he thorouchls searched for a secon

net the sty tioni®nse, but tent pegehe the ‘arrival of the patro

cacie Neoieht to prvaee went be enhanced by such a position. We

i

. >

ser Dittsne

‘

woeidoontvc be atferdiig the deceased the opportunity to dispose of in

founatie: Ovidence before he reaches the place ef tatial detention

= . .

J . .

- ? *

; .

.

{ nite rd NStithe Sar ~ Lovie rhea D

e e .

.

‘. Pie? eof; «62 seal wtbegiut tot thie clontittadess cvedent oft hiupnine

Tnharly aettiat Mh Tine ais’, tiltes f Peokelestry i inthe cebu pal beceterd by thie

| Tuet that tort appellant <comed his sister in haw Were present im the

+° . + - . . ,

Pee White Phe cedar Was thetoeted Sew oh Hinson vi ft hiitead Stliutes,

] .

SER CS. WC ENES eS Nor need we debermine. assuming protaable

. ine’ Too arrest cap Peat Les ea Paes Vitettienr or teat thre seareh ar

PPeant ss pockets Was jitstified as sav ineident of that arrest

Pie seupeds tebloweds both the CeeHUUESI Theat ol Tlie awstannend, presto bole

. ; : 4

tse Peer thie Marat tes arrest atid thee arrest lageeeht Shie Warrants

assault ated Watters amd threatening oo preceded the

! x . . .

TOP Ge etitreemennt of the papeaotios Presi cob Wriiely at seperbit: bee

ected dit Merdent. Pn this reward. congas Pe pie NO Site, 45

Cal. Sl G4, 20 Peed 584 (9055. with Pistocunad Lo tiiteed States

S$ Pod lee roe Cin 1956,

«

Phi Niedwrrye yi! OL the joWer eottrt ows aftivpmed °

Kriflorsed) Opinion Filed Mav 4. [ry ,

Frank UL Sehmid, Clerk.

A ral

°

Pe

a

* *

.

. ’ e

.

*

e

ve «

- r

s ' ' {ipsettiog oon th Gtpepes Pre orse Mish statute The thirty oi at

1 OUT SP OWANEset? ps oe recat ts ” eis] Ww | lilfes? Btufes 4 h),

' Mh { s mst. ast) }Ggs : Fast fist I riite-ey State >, Ssuprss bf ie -s

MI ‘4 1; ery Sti t- bids | - ere, hy lis v Tie Hawear sfiuftste

peisetabole by Phie rite ~t ibs Sree I. I 7 oF iH “ ae ove i

if ‘A I ‘ ~fes ' > wit pererbocibeter « ise perect ‘ ipeot. the ae

‘ =the

. .

.

0

Appendix “B”

é wee ,

United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

ee

-_-----

No. Lo 477

James Do Charles, ]

Appellant, |

Vs. {

United Stites of Atmericn,

Appellee. ,

IC DAALE NT

Neca Prot the United States District Court for -

the Pastrret of Haws.

This enuse enme ot te be hesrd on the Transeriotio

M 4

ie!

the Record trem the United Stites Distiret Court

the Disttiet of Hawai and was dily submitted,

On consideration Whereaty itis mow here ordered and

adjudged hy this Court, that thee sPrrdoren nt of the sie

District Conrt inthis cause bes and hereby ts attirnier

(Endorsed) Judgement

Filed and entered: May 4, TORE

rank HH. Sechrard. Clerk,

ae |

. of : 749

Appendix “C

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAI. PROCEDURE

Rule G1 Searel und Slisuie. .

(a) Authority te Pssne Warrant. A searel warrant

sHitherized ty this rule THAN bee instil Hy Henidve of the

United States ar ofn state. Commonwealth op terra

torkul court of record or ivy a Cited States eormis-

Sener Within the-distriet whereiie the propert} somtoayt

tx Jocetead,

bb) (irons Pot Ussianen, Acwarriant min be tis

sumed nnder this rale te search for hed serze guy

a . “3

Peopenrt Vv

.

(1) Stolen or embezzled in vielution of the laws uf

the Cited States: or

by

Pdeespermy ddaop Ihiteneeds bor Idser cre Vy hie Ist hes

Heetedsed as the mete of committine moerimntiab ag

Peres ap

: .

‘ > e Pes ' “1 ‘ : ’ oh P

op? } USSOESSUCL, Corti pend te dl, mor clers] TEL aT TEs Pieqe |

i Pi Gee ee Whitey Is tip has boa th Tesel nT Utoolet geen cit

Nth ts S.€.. See. 457:

hey PSstaties and Contents.” 24 Wirtnsanit still issn

AR ed ee

Mi om afhidavit swerth te before thee |

sieteer ated establishine the erernids’ Por odsstunes thy

Warrant. PY the jndoe or corinissiomer js saitistiod: that

Statins for the Hp tert hon me \tst pt thst th ier ds ‘| Perle

hte Calise tes dulleve that. thes UNIS, diy Shall PSS Ee" G]

errant ddentityine the property dined qemine cr dy

seribine the persenor plies te he searched. ‘Me way

reunit sbiced ldo directed tera civil offieer of the United

States authorized toetforée or assist i nfercine curs

law: thereet or tea person se authorized by the Pres

dent oof the Uarited States, It shall.state the erotinds

or probable cange for its isstiatee and the natues «ot

the pre setis Whose aftidss cits ha vesbeen taken tu SUepepreret

thereat. Pt shall cominittie the affieer te seareh torth-

With the persenm er place named fer the property

specitied. The warrnunt shall direet that it be served im

the daytime. butt the affidavits are positive that th.

preperty ds con the pertsenm cor an the police tir bn

searehed, the warrant may direet that 1 bee served at

any tune. Tt shall destunate the distriet judge or thie

cotibiisstener tet heun at shall be returned,

Gd) Exeentron camel Return wath Inventory, The

Warrant may beeseented and returned only within 1

duvs after itsakite. “Phe Oitieer takine property under

‘he warrant’ shall give te the person from wher of

Prot Whose premises thr preperty Was taken a cep

of the warrant and a ree byt for the properts Takes

or shall leave the eapy ated reeetpt at the place fren

whieh thay Pepoperhy Wes taken. Phe return shall t-

rricteda® promptly nad shard! bie secorrpaariied bya ws rittes

Inventory of any property taken. The diventory shal’

Vie rtaieler 1s the podarse Phare of the pplieant for the war

revit ana this Hi sony fdetn VW ieee proses tren ol prretripse

thre a rts Was taken. if they are present, orn th

wreseticn of at least one eredible person other than th:

applicant for the warrant or thee foedserty fates Whe

persse sstorti ee Pettis the PVOperty Wide taken. ate

ball verttied Ie the offieer, The judge or commis

J :

stoner shit] Vi poeots, Veen stedeliver a rape at thie inven

Tory to thre: je Tsao} treotn Wlhiertay eat’ Prete Whose Pretitses

the property was taker and te the applieant for the

Warratet. ‘Lhest .

(ei Motion bev Reetrrny te] PPrvspren ny sand te Sip 2

press Rvndenice, A person aeerieved bean unbawfal

searehy andl <erzurs HAN trove the clistriet court fap the

| distriet in which the property iis senzert Tor the return

Of the property and te sip

press Tor tise as evidences

: HVT sey erhotsadaes if tity this “Pest erien tl vat ] ; thi a

Bil gh Seen Wat lecorrthy stp Zit] Db peonat Welt irawt, vt Ath thie

WATT ts dtistitfiedent any ats Pstvel es Pubes othe pre prerty

izetl ts tet that heseeriloea| ity thie Waerriiht, opr ¢-f)

thane Wils fjeit porcolosi tals ‘*; Thige eN TNE

ih on? tthe 2 belitieds why Whried Pise Wrtrintutl Wis i~sthead,

on fap) thie: Warrant. wes plecsalfs ‘ Seeniteaf. Th; a. i

wy : é

beng td ‘age are ap 4 : * * ‘1 ‘ a ate

a RT Ob Veeeve TV Viededpese ool cehay I= st he Pa erent

.

to the deedsten of the motion. 1 Mie petion as orate

°

He pPePoperty sbicel de ve Peoteed rypy! t}

a ; A Fage

; Nes Cartier PW owe

*

ibe rece |

tee Taw fr] detention ined at staal! ret hn adtritssgbihe it

tele dine ‘it sttin ir eA trial. Vhs wR ee 143).

PReOSN ch eletive tgih ssi deri tre the elistriet

th Preset aS ter dae Pye. Vhe Phoeefdeudy stacy

Trhatl ar depen me HUES oopepeottiapiity. theca eal” 1446) ‘ficit

UNIS? a] Thy rie 1 Melsatyt Weis Piesf Sates ei The 5% ee ids

tae} Vhie titel] ‘) ty ? Thi qertyp? jt r< (dissected 9 be cai

UPieine thie: teeeotieeds et thee tetat ep | eerie

. e . te

y Retin of Papers te. hey Chi fedoras” nay

. HiPtpissdea it \ } ; j in tee lend i ’ ‘i re be | 1 ¢ =H) i

' e

7? reedy rep 2 teec% re are 4B “onde i Tlie: Pet 1? i? epitests

e

) 1 | - :

LEE cetbie dD Putbwers Py eetyiteaet Thheone WITH) fetiel shia

e

hy)

tile thea with the: ch rhoot the district court fer the

distriet mi Which the property Was seized.

(uw) Scope and Detinittion. This crule does not

nodity any ack, eotsistent with at, regulating’ search,

seizure aid the issttutes and exectition vot seareh ware

ratits In elrentnstances tet Wiiteh speetil previstom is

thade. The term ‘property 7 iy used in this tule te iy

clude documents, books, papers and any other tangthic

>

objects. As amended Dhow, PT. Was, ctf. Oet, BO, 194,

.

’

~a&}

. | I

Appendix “D"

TESTIMONY OF OFFICER WRAY STRAUSS:

a FF ee Wheat cluataees LG NVeotl

hie’ Deskiee: Statrers 2

A; Nitheoties Sette, this: Vite

22) Nit te what dtativs ix Sey

biieia dd? %

AA. Moorids Sor igi.

’.

A.) Cs ss.

(). What Was Thy ricittire eof ft

Mixes i} preeel ial the Ves i drs

heormielly asstoneed at

Ptry Isbeoti,

Stes he 8 Nkivtice rreorrrpcel dy

he tWer Warrant. thet «

Serceaunt Akiitis had Foy. s UV dee: cote thre abet habit that

CVE

’

. eee +

iy Lovsthy Wiirriints entye Tine

SUMLET curtged bocatte mV. issthad da Mes.

hl =i] te : +.

cba oeiiastid,

e. 4)

AM Nuied Pn iteab vr ane satel

reseed the: Warsnt<”.. : .

a. o The =t \ Bets Wiles rrictege: si? t/

“ite fre weatsteal ter rested the: wep

Pp Agi«l Weeth screw thet site, I

\. Pha PheePtrici nol eed i deo hee Lent

SR Need thir wie the propre!

-

te ! thr —O°P\ Lares a atl BAG) “a? f

; ha ;

’ -f . 8

’ tie , ‘ H :

. }

- ste Prie® os!

: ‘ } ’ 7a H

: o> - i ? .

’

Vi~we i ; Bai: U ‘

.

Protis., Ves,

? .

~t Te} ? ? \' ’

‘

thors t.) ’ ’

AL Whenever a person is arrested.

a No ~ereberhy Wiis itatede- Past

we

PeViLED WrneT el ed teg Offre py em EM ad?

Lie

Charles was supposed te have seme tuariimana, is that

correct ? ; :

A. Justa package of eruarettes that he had stieking

eutoot his procke nS

4). TP said. ne seareh Was ngade bevond this frisking

that took place tnediately after Vou entered the root

until after Offieer Sandiage came: an amd stated that

Charles was supposed te have some marihuana?

A. That's rights"

ocak Ha tty)

"Q. From the time chat vom entered the honse and

nutil the Titi lie tipst produced the package of ena

rettes from: tis pocket, vou were then in the kitchen,

and about hew tong elapsed ? -

A. About 15, 20 minutes, PD eyress.

Q. And during that Po or 20 initiates, what wae

done? .

A. Charles had asked usin. We all walked in. EE

Walked abead. naturally, the first one, anid Sergean!

Akan and nivseclt, As we walked im. as soon as Wwe

Walked into thes living reo, | stneHed a ostrone oder

of marthuanma. Pcathed Seroeant Akatiaseattentian te

it, We continied on mite the rootn. Pmwsety started

checking as We walhed ins thie vate Devetnn, theekr

the ash travs. We met the girl. Mies ato evervat

stood right within the livin reer. Phe warpints wee

explained te Mr. Charles. L believe be asked Sereesns

Akana a few questions in recard te the warrants. HH

couldn't understand it. PEs was back with he war

sean. Ue eouldivt understand ate?

(ts var 78

Gtticg ‘Supe Me | { v

curt

=)

JAMES R. BRO’ AMING. Clerk

Yn the Supreme Court of the Brited States

October Trrgt, 1959

James D. CHARLES, PETITIONER

v.

UNITED States oF AMERICA

ON PETITION FOR 4 WRIT OF

CERTIORARI T0 THE CNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH O1RCTIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED 87'ATES IN OPPOSITION

J. LEE RANKIN,

Sotsottor General,

MAICOLM RICHARD WILEEY,

Assiston? Attorney General,

EUGENE L. GRIMM, ~

| Attorney,

Department of Justice, Washington 25, D.C.

“INDEX

Page

Opinion below l

Jurisdiction _- |

Question presented: 1

Statement _- ; 2

_ Argument ; aes Pat

Conclusion 7

- CITATIONS

Causes:

Abel v. United States, 362 US. 217_- o, 6

Go-Bart Importing Company ¥. rr nited Stute 8,

282 U.S. 344. ; 5

Harris vo U nited States, 331 U.S 145 5, 6,7

Jones x. United States, 357 U.S. 493 °

- L ustig V. United States, 338 U.S. 74. 3

United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 5

United States v. Rabinow sae 339 US. 56+ _

White v. United Nate 8, 27! F. 2d $29_. ; 6

Statutes:.

2. -U 8... 176(a)

26 U.S.C. 4744/9)

| In the Supreme Court of the United States

OcToBER ‘TERM, 1959

No. 976

JAMES D. CHARLES, PETITIONER

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

_ ON PETITION» FOR 4 WRIT OF CERTIORARI_TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the court of appeals (R, 161-165) is

not.vet reported. :

JURISDICTION

The judgment of -the court of appeals was entered

on May 4,:1960 (R. 166). The petition for a writ of

certiorari was filed on May 31, 1960. The jurisdiction

of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C, 1254(1).

QUESTION: PRESENTED

Whether, when a person has been arrested pursuant

toa valid Warrant unrejated to narcotics, it is proper

to search his persen and the premises and to seize

contraband marihuana’so found.

(1).