Court Opinion

ID: 9454143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:37:38.468464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:59.461892
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC IN NO. 25339.
Before GOLDBERG and CLAYTON*, Circuit Judges, and NOEL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In his petition for rehearing, appellant Gurleski objects to our conclusion in the original opinion that he had waived any objections to the search and seizure incident To the arrest of Mrs. Villaf ranea. Counsel for Gurleski insists that the trial judge announced prior to trial that the objections of any defendant would inure to the benefit of all defendants. The trial judge did make such a statement, but when evidence from the search in question was admitted at the trial, appellant’s counsel announced, “I don’t rise to object. I am just trying to identify how far 90 is.” Under the circumstances, we will concede the semantical phenomenon contended for by appellant and treat this express disclaimer of objection as a valid objection to the evidence in question. Nevertheless, we hold that the record indicates beyond any doubt that the search of Mrs. Villafranea’s home at the time of her arrest was reasonable in purpose, scope and duration. Moreover, the evidence is conclusive that Mrs. Villafranca gave her free uncoerced oral and written consent to this search.
We have carefully considered the other contentions advanced in this petition for rehearing and find that they are without merit.
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.