Task: songer_search

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court below improperly rule for the prosecution on an issue related to an alleged illegal search and seizure?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". If a civil suit brought by a prisoner or a criminal defendant in another action that alleges a tort based on an illegal search and seizure, also consider the issue to be present in the case.

PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Richard D. Herndon, was convicted by a jury of selling lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 331 (q) (2). It is from the judgment of conviction that this appeal is now taken.
The gist of appellant’s argument here is that since the federal government has seen fit to grant a special exemption to the Native American Church, a religious organization of Indians, to use the hallucinogen peyote in connection with their religious services, it is a denial of equal protection of the laws and a form of religious discrimination to prohibit appellant, an alleged minister of the Neo American Church, from selling the hallucinogen LSD to a man who was introduced to him as a gangster interested in buying and distributing LSD.
We have carefully examined the record in this case, and it is quite obvious that appellant was involved solely in an illegal commercial transaction, not a protected religious practice. There is absolutely no evidence of any infringement of Herndon’s constitutional rights.
Accordingly the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Question: Did the court below improperly rule for the prosecution on an issue related to an alleged illegal search and seizure?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E