Court Opinion

ID: 9443064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:10:04.440548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:21.793101
License: Public Domain

FAHY, Circuit Judge.
I concur in the result. As to the evidence obtained as a consequence of the warrant for search of the premises, I have no difficulty whatsoever because I entirely agree that the warrant was valid.
' As to the evidence obtained by search of the person of Wyche, the absence of a motion to suppress, as preferred by Rule 41(e), Fed.R.Crim.P., and his failure to claim ownership of the property sought to be excluded, are not fatal to his contention. Seasonable and adequate objection to the admission of the disputed evidence was made during the trial and entertained by the court. The Rule provides, in part, that “the court in its discretion may entertain the motion [to suppress] at the trial or hearing.” Wyche was aggrieved (Rule 41(e)) because the search was of his person. He therefore had standing to object to its admission without asserting ownership of the property seized.
My concurrence with respect to the evidence taken from the person of Wyche rests upon the assumption on which the trial proceeded, that the search of Wyche was in connection with his arrest. Since probable cause existed for the arrest, it was lawful. The search incidental thereto was accordingly valid. There is some question in my mind whether there was in fact an arrest of Wyche which preceded search of his person, but I resolve this doubt consistently with the assumption made during the trial.