Legal Document

408 U.S. 224 92 Supreme Court Reporter 2284 33 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 308 Elisha COMBS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 71—517. Argued April 11, 1972. Decided June 26, James N. Perry, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. William Bradford Reynolds, Washington, D.C., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 We granted certiorari on claims that evidence introduced against petitioner was obtained through an unlawful search has standing to challenge. The Government now suggests the warrant authorizing invalid, but further factual determinations are required resolve question of petitioner's challenge admission in allegedly stolen goods seized by agents. 2 Petitioner and his father were convicted after a joint trial1 under indictment charging them with having violated 18 Code KF62 § 6592 receiving, possessing, concealing 26 cases tax-paid whiskey known have been from interstate shipment. Government's at trial tended show delivered 40 Newport, Kentucky, home Mrs. Ballard, who had previously expressed her willingness buy it. day delivery, sold some thereafter heard it property, telephoned told him remove remainder home. one Martin then moved estranged wife; few days later, however, 'the heat on' would be once again. two men transported Hazard, where they stored shed farm owned father. 3 Sometime FBI agent whiskey; when turn passed information Kentucky state police, latter for, seizure of, property supported affidavit, which insufficient holding Aguilar versus Texas, 378 108, 84 1509, 12 723 (1964). Armed warrant, police went conducted search, led discovery identified as railroad shipment intended delivery Michigan Liquor Control Board. not living father's nor he present there took place. 4 Prior trial, defendants jointly District suppress ground no showing probable cause support issuance warrant. Court, following evidentiary hearing,3 denied motion merits, subsequently trial. Following conviction father, only appealed, raising single issue validity warrant; Appeals did reach merits claim respecting lacked legality seizure. 446 Federal Reporter, 2nd 515. 5 In concluding such standing, noted, inter alia, 'asserted possessory or proprietary searched premises' during course F.2d, 516. Clearly, failure make any assertion, either pretrial suppression hearing, may well explained related raise Fourth Amendment claim. event, record before us is virtually barren facts necessary determine whether interest connection premises gave rise 'a reasonable expectation (on part) freedom governmental intrusion' upon those premises. Mancusi DeForte, 392 364, 368, 88 2120, 2124, 20 1154 (1968).4 If can establish interest, will demonstrated basis attack search; re-examination light position appropriate properly 6 Since yet determination protectible doctrine we vacate judgment remand directions case sent back proceedings consistent this opinion. 7 Vacated remanded. 8 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs result. Both convicted, appeal; another codefendant brother, acquitted charge. Section 659 provides follows: 'Whoever . unlawfully takes, carries away, conceals, fraud deception obtains car, other vehicle, station house, platform depot intent convert own use chattels moving part foreign .; buys receives possession chattels, knowing same embezzled stolen; 'Shall fined more than $5,000 imprisoned ten years, both ..' No relating hearing. relied Jones States, 362 257, 80 725, 697 (1960), done away requirement must legal ownership premises.' U.S., 369, S.Ct., 2124. Jones, held enunciated rules alternative grounds its decision. First, ruled 'possession (an accused) suffices give fair rational conception requirements Rule 41(e),' Fed.Rule Crim.Proc.; second, 'anyone legitimately occurs' search. 264, 267, 734. urged take opportunity, said presented instant case, re-examine first Jones. Even assuming disposed do so, not, opinion filed deal nature charge brought within coverage aspect holding, decline consider issues court.

Classification Label: 0