Opinion ID: 266654
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arrest of appellant was legal

Text: 4 Since the agents had no arrest warrant for Miguel he contends that his arrest was illegal. But what the agents had themselves observed of the transactions between Miguel and West and of Miguel's subsequent conduct, interpreted in the light of West's prior disclosures to the agents, was ample evidence to justify their belief that a narcotics violation had already been or was about to be committed. 1 5 III. Denial of Miguel's motion to suppress evidence obtained on search of his person after arrest 6 This motion was denied by Judge Palmieri in January 1964 after a hearing. The motion was based on the theory that the lobby of the apartment building at 630 Lenox Avenue was within the 'curtilage' of appellant's residence. 2 As stated in Care v. United States, 10 Cir., 231 F.2d 22, 25, cert. den. 351 U.S. 932, 76 S.Ct. 788, 100 L.Ed. 1461, whether a given area is within the protection of one's dwelling depends upon a number of factors of which location is but one. We have been cited to no authority which would include the lobby of a multi-tenanted apartment house within the 'curtilage' of each tenant. Such authority as there is points the other way. We agree with Judge Palmieri's decision. 7