Eng Fung Jem v. United States

Good Law
281 F.2d 803·86 A.L.R. 2d 981·1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3877
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 10, 196016644California875 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stephens, J.

Collaborating state and federal law enforcement officers were told by an allegedly reliable but unidentified informer that narcotics could be found in a hotel room which appellant was and had been occupying for several days in El Centro, California. Without a warrant or permission of any kind these officers gained entrance to and searched appellant’s room, discovering and seizing some narcotics. Eng was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted for violating 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 (unlawful concealment and reception of narcotics). It is admitted that appellant moved in the trial court to suppress the introduction of the narcotics as evidence. The motion was denied. Appellant has appealed and claims that the ruling constituted reversible error.

The United States defends the lower court’s refusal to suppress on the grounds that the officers had probable cause to believe that there were narcotics in appellant’s hotel room and that the circumstances of the case entitled them to enter and search the room even though they had neither a warrant nor an intention to arrest appellant. It may be added that the officers knew that appellant was not in the room at the time they entered and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.