United States v. Oscar Gonzalez-Rodriguez

Appellant was found guilty and was convicted of the offense of exportation of arms and ammunition as set forth in Count 2 of the indictment. Coupt 2 specifies violation of Title 22, United States Code, Sections 401 and 1934 and Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 127.01.

A special agent of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was informed by sales clerks, of-two surplus stores in Los Angeles, on September 4, 1973 that Juan Emiglio Bonilla and Benito Alberto Hernandez' had purchased a number of M-l carbines (Plainfield). The clerks also provided a description of the automobile in which the rifles were transported. The agent went to the Bonilla residence and observed firearms being transported from the trunk of the vehicle to Bonilla’s resilience, and later that night observed firearms being transferred from Bonilla’s residence to a pickup truck equipped with a camper shell. Special agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the United States Customs "Service established continuous surveillance of the defendants and the pickup truck.

The agents observed a larger camper shell being built and placed on the pick-kp truck. Two…

(concur-ring):

■ I concur in the judgment, but for somewhat different reasons from those stated in Judge Lane’s opinion.

First: I think it at least arguable .that the agents had information, before the vehicle started for the border, sufficient to give them probable cause to believe that the defendants intended to export the munitions. If so, they could have obtained a warrant. It does not -follow, however, that they were required to do so. It was proper for them to wait until they had more evidence before "’seeking to search.

*932 The applicable principle is well stated by Justice Blackmun in Cardwell v. Lewis, 1974, 417 U.S. 583 at 595-6 , 94 S.Ct. 2464, 2472 , 41 L.Ed.2d 325 :

To the same effect is United States v. Church, 9 Cir., 1973, 490 F.2d 353, 356 (opinion of Aldrich, J.) 357 (opinion of Duniway, J.). What we have in the case at bar is excellent police work, not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Second: I agree that when the camper was stopped just before it reached the border, the agents had more than probable cause to seize and search it. At that time, they knew that it contained munitions, they knew that no export license had been issued, and they knew that…

513 F.2d 928 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar GONZALEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 74-2572. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 19, 1975. Mary O'Hare, Federal Public Defenders (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Herbert Hoffman, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), for plaintiff-appellee. Before DUNIWAY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and LANE, * Judge. OPINION LANE, Judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals: Appellant was found guilty and was convicted of the offense of exportation of arms and ammunition as set forth in Count 2 of the indictment. Count 2 specifies violation of Title 22, United States Code, Sections 401 and 1934 and Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 127.01. A special agent of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was informed by sales clerks of two surplus stores in Los Angeles on September 4, 1973 that Juan Emiglio Bonilla and Benito Alberto Hernandez had purchased a number of M-1 carbines (Plainfield). The clerks also provided a description of the automobile in which the rifles were transported. The agent went to the Bonilla residence and observed firearms…