Paul Taglavore v. United States

This appeal involves a conviction for possession of narcotics and specifically raises the question whether the evidence upon which the judgment of conviction rests was procured in violation of appellant’s constitutional rights. Such questions arise in nearly all appeals we are called upon to decide in *264 narcotics cases, involving as they do the cunning of the alleged offenders as they attempt to evade detection, and the efforts of the law enforcement officers to circumvent these attempts. It may be validly stated that in no field of law enforcement and detection is the work of the law officers more difficult; yet, difficult as detection may be, the arm of the law extends constitutional safeguards which must be respected. The factual situation presented at the trial of appellant is in substance as follows:

On May 3, 1958, James F. Calhoon was an investigator with the vice squad of the Alaska Territorial Police. Appellant at the time was employed as a cab driver with the Union Cab Company of Fairbanks, a job he sometimes took during the winter months when there was no construction work. At about 11:10 P.M. on this particular day Investigator Calhoon and several other police…

(concurring) .

Here we have “rough stuff” and I join in striking it down. Without indulging in explanation, I regard the *268 result here as wholly consistent with our case of Blackford v. United States, 247 F.2d 745 .

In as simple a case as this, I see no harm in not holding that a motion to suppress was necessary, but I do not believe the case should be taken as authority that a motion to suppress is never necessary.

291 F.2d 262 Paul TAGLAVORE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 17214. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. June 13, 1961. Taylor & Crane, Fairbanks, Alaska (Fred D. Crane, Fairbanks, Alaska, of counsel), for appellant. Warren C. Colver, U.S. Atty., and James R. Clouse, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, for appellee. Before CHAMBERS, ORR, and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges. ORR, Circuit Judge. 1 This appeal involves a conviction for possession of narcotics and specifically raises the question whether the evidence upon which the judgment of conviction rests was procured in violation of appellant's constitutional rights. Such questions arise in nearly all appeals we are called upon to decide in narcotics cases, involving as they do the cunning of the alleged offenders as they attempt to evade detection, and the efforts of the law enforcement officers to circumvent these attempts. It may be validly stated that in no field of law enforcement and detection is the work of the law officers more difficult; yet, difficult as detection may be, the arm of the law extends constitutional safeguards which must be respected. The factual situation presented at the…