Court Opinion

ID: 9453824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:25:02.001547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:49.161367
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
In his petition for rehearing, otherwise repetitive of arguments advanced in the initial appeal which we deem sufficiently answered in the opinion that we have filed, defendant presses on us Bumper v. State of North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968) as dispositive of the issue of the alleged illegal search and seizure.
In Bumper, insofar as pertinent here, it was held that a defendant was convicted in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when there was admitted into evidence against him a rifle seized as a result of a search to which the defendant’s grandmother, with whom defendant lived, ostensibly consented, but only after the searching officers represented that they had a search warrant. Specifically, the Court concluded:
“When a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no right to resist the search. The situation is instinct with coercion — albeit colora-bly lawful coercion. Where there is coercion there cannot be consent.” 391 U.S. 550, 88 S.Ct. 1792, 20 L.Ed.2d 803.
Bumper, as the citations contained therein demonstrate, announced no new or novel constitutional rule; and on the facts in the instant case, we think Bumper is inapposite.
In the case at bar, the agents did not have, nor did they claim to have, a search warrant. They had only an arrest warrant commanding defendant’s arrest. They so advised defendant’s wife, and in her presence conducted a search of her apartment to ascertain *243that defendant was not present or hidden on the premises. The facts concerning seizure of the money and the gun are stated in the main opinion. It suffices, in denying the petition, to stress that the agents never claimed the right to search for the money or the gun. The presence of these became known when Mrs. Reto-laza admitted that they were hidden and she, in response to their request, which was unsupported by any claim by the agents that they had a right to enforce compliance, produced the articles. After full evidentiary exploration, the district judge found, on substantial evidence, that Mrs. Retolaza’s actions were taken freely and voluntarily. We agree.
Rehearing is denied.