Eddie Pearl Clayton v. United States

Appellant was convicted on two substantive counts (possession and sale) of heroin, and one count of conspiracy to conceal and sell heroin. 21 U.S.C. § 174 .

Appellant first urges that Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed.2d 57 , (1969), is controlling. We hold it is not, by its express terms. Id. at 45 , 89 S.Ct. 1553 n. 92. Thus, Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178 , 45 S.Ct. 470 , 69 L.Ed. 904 (1925), still controls.

Appellant next suggests the heroin was seized after a warrantless and hence illegal search and seizure of his air express shipment — either (a) by the employees of the airline, or (b) Los Angeles police officers, or (c) by both of them, or (d) by Chicago officers.

This heroin was clearly discovered as a result of a private search which was, hence, not unlawful. Gold v. United States, 378 F.2d 588, 591 (9th Cir. 1967).

The subsequent acts of the police did not constitute a search. Wolf Low v. United States, 391 F.2d 61, 63 (9th Cir. 1968).

The exigencies of time and the possible removal of the contraband to another state created an emergency — an “exigent circumstance.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed.…