Task: songer_typeiss

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the general category of issues discussed in the opinion of the court. Choose among the following categories. Criminal and prisioner petitions- includes appeals of conviction, petitions for post conviction relief, habeas corpus petitions, and other prisoner petitions which challenge the validity of the conviction or the sentence or the validity of continued confinement. Civil - Government - these will include appeals from administrative agencies (e.g., OSHA,FDA), the decisions of administrative law judges, or the decisions of independent regulatory agencies (e.g., NLRB, FCC,SEC). The focus in administrative law is usually on procedural principles that apply to administrative agencies as they affect private interests, primarily through rulemaking and adjudication. Tort actions against the government, including petitions by prisoners which challenge the conditions of their confinement or which seek damages for torts committed by prion officials or by police fit in this category. In addition, this category will include suits over taxes and claims for benefits from government. Diversity of Citizenship - civil cases involving disputes between citizens of different states (remember that businesses have state citizenship). These cases will always involve the application of state or local law. If the case is centrally concerned with the application or interpretation of federal law then it is not a diversity case. Civil Disputes - Private - includes all civil cases that do not fit in any of the above categories. The opposing litigants will be individuals, businesses or groups.

PER CURIAM.
Convicted by a jury on an indictment containing three counts charging him with (1) the custody or possession of an unregistered distillery; (2) engaging in the business of a distiller without bond, and (3) making and fermenting a large quantity of mash in violation of the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States relating to liquor, appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his arrest without a warrant and the ensuing search of his premises were inoffensive to settled legal principles and in instructions to the jury on aiding and abetting.
While appellant was operating under lease a restaurant near Moss Point, Mississippi, a water line, requiring the excavation of a small ditch, was laid across a driveway to the rear of the restaurant. Its installation extended over a period of several days and was observed by appellant. It led to a faucet some twenty-five feet behind the restaurant and furnished water by means of a hose to a still located at a distance of several hundred feet. When discovered by the arresting officers the still was found to contain 2100 gallons of fermenting mash. While it was not located on premises under his control, its only available source of fresh water was the water line from the appellant’s restaurant.
Armed with the foregoing facts, the statement by appellant that he paid the water bills, and information supplied by an undercover agent who had worked in the restaurant as a short-order cook that while the water line was being laid appellant was present at the rear of a truck containing several barrels from which there emanated a distinct odor of mash, the A.T.T.D. agents arrested him without a warrant. .
Following such arrest, at the request of the agents and without objection, appellant unlocked the restaurant with a key procured from his trailer home. Therein was found a notebook containing entries of substantial quantities of sugar and grain and denoting appellant’s receipt of “84 gallons” and “30 gallons”.
Since the still was located on premises neither owned by nor in the possession or under the control of appellant, he has no standing to complain that its discovery was the fruit of an unlawful search. Parr v. United States, 255 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1958). The totality of the circumstances justified his arrest without a warrant under the teaching of Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959).
Appellant fares no better with respect to his contention that the entry into and inspection of his restaurant violated his right of privacy protected by the fourth amendment. The search of premises under his immediate control was justified either as an incident to his lawful arrest, Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1946), or because he voluntarily assented thereto, Robinson v. United States, 325 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1964).
A careful reading of the trial court’s charge on aiding and abetting leaves us with the firm conviction that it was free from error. The judgment of the trial court is due to be and is
Affirmed.

Question: What is the general category of issues discussed in the opinion of the court?
A. criminal and prisoner petitions
B. civil - government
C. diversity of citizenship
D. civil - private
E. other, not applicable
F. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A