Court Opinion

ID: 9455472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:23:28.945364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:36.822532
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing and for Rehearing in Banc
PER CURIAM:
The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for a rehearing in banc.
In his petition appellee contends that our opinion is contrary to the holding of this court in Kuhl v. United States, 370 F.2d 20 (9th Cir. 1966). Kuhl is distinguishable.
There the very existence of the right allegedly waived was founded on a disputed proposition of law. The question was whether we should, on collateral attack of the judgment under § 2255, entertain the dispute and resolve it. Trial counsel had been aware of the fact that his side of the dispute was arguable, yet had deliberately refrained from presenting it to the trial court. Under the circumstances we decided that the issue had been waived.
Here we are not called on to decide a question that counsel had deliberately refrained from asking the trial court to decide. The question here is whether the right to challenge the search warrant under Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), which unquestionably was applicable, was knowingly waived. It is clear that it was not.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an in bane hearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing in banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35(b).
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing in banc is rejected.