Court Opinion

ID: 9444153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:43:43.008017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:44.510709
License: Public Domain

RUSSELL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the reversal of the judgment as to appellant Cochran. While it is of course true, generally, that a hotel man or tourist court operator is not to be charged with law violations of the occupants of his rooms, the present is not the usual case. In the first place, it is clear that co-defendant, Mannley, who was under investigation by the narcotic agents, was a somewhat permanent tenant of the tourist court which Cochran managed. It is likewise clear that there was much intercommunication and travel and acquaintanceship between each of the defendants. This was apparent to the agents through the several days of the investigatiqn. Furthermore, at the time the defendant Collins referred Rambo to Mannley, as a source from whom narcotics could be purchased, Cochran was present and, upon being asked by Collins if Mannley had any narcotics, Cochran replied, “I suppose he has, he always does have.” This, be it remembered, was the regular tenant of one of his tourist cabins. When subsequently the agents made the purchase from Mannley and determined the time was ripe to spring the trap and a search disclosed the narcotics in Mannley’s cabin, it seems to me there was probable cause for the belief that Cochran, the operator of the tourist court, was a party to the conspiracy, or at least concerned in the illegal sale, and thus was sufficient to authorize his arrest. The incidental search of his person was therefore not illegal and the discovery of the marked money in Cochran’s possession, together with the other facts and circumstances in the case, presented a question of guilt for determination by the jury. I think, therefore, the trial court correctly refused to suppress the evidence and to direct a verdict of acquittal of Cochran.