Pascual Renteria-Medina v. United States

346 F.2d 853 Pascual RENTERIA-MEDINA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 19478. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. June 14, 1965. 1 Richard G. Tatus, San Diego, Cal., for appellant. 2 Manuel L. Real, U.S. Atty., John K. Van De Kamp, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Crim., Section, Burt S. Pines, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. 3 Before CHAMBERS and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, District judge. 4 BOWEN, District Judge. 5 Appellant Pascual Renteria-Medina (hereinafter called Renteria or appellant) appeals from the jury's conviction and the Trial Court's judgment and five-year sentence of him on each of Counts 2 and 3 of the three-Count indictment charging appellant and his co-defendant (herein referred to as Felix) in Count 2 with smuggling into this country, and in Count 3 with knowingly receiving, concealing and facilitating the transportation and concealment of, approximately one ounce of heroin, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 174, with concurrent execution of the two sentences. Count 1 of the same indictment charging appellant with aiding and abetting his co-defendant Felix in obtaining the latter's unlawful entry into the United…

Appellant Pascual Renteria-Medina (hereinafter called Renteria or appellant) appeals from the jury’s conviction and the Trial Court’s judgment and five-year sentence of him on each of Counts 2 and 3 of the three-Count indictment charging appellant and his co-defendant (herein referred to as Felix) in Count 2 with smuggling into this country, and in Count 3 with knowingly receiving, concealing and facilitating the transportation and concealment of, approximately one ounce of heroin, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. § 174 , with concurrent execution of the two sentences. Count 1 of the same indictment charging appellant with aiding and abetting his co-defendant Felix in obtaining the latter’s unlawful entry into the United States was dismissed.

The Trial Court had jurisdiction under said § 174, and under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . This Court has jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294.

Appellant on this appeal assigns two alleged errors: (1) that the evidence *854 used to convict the appellant was obtained by unreasonable search and seizure, and (2) that the court misled the jury by comment and failed to properly instruct on possession.

Immigration inspectors have…

(concurring).

I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion.

Section 1357, Title 8 U.S.C., provides in pertinent part that any officer or employee of the Immigration Service has the power, without warrant—

It was under such authority that the appellant and his passenger, Felix, were stopped and interrogated by the immigation inspectors. See Fernandez v. United States, 321 F.2d 283 (9th Cir., 1963). During the interrogation by the inspector of Felix concerning his status in the United States, Felix voluntarily handed to the immigration inspector a small notebook in which, among other things, was a small package which contained a powdery substance which Felix stated was heroin. In my view such facts constituted probable cause for the inspector to search the person of Felix. Such search revealed in Felix’s pocket a cigarette box containing a powdery substance which was later identified as heroin. Such search was reasonable and based upon probable cause. In these circumstances the District Judge properly overruled appellant’s objections to the introduction into evidence of the heroin obtained from Felix.