United States v. Donald Eugene Hickman, United States of America v. Thomas Henry Landers

*325 OPINION

Appellants were each convicted on four counts of conspiracy to import, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and importation and possession of a controlled substance. The case was tried without a jury on stipulated facts and the testimony of a single witness. Appellants argue that the trial judge erred in failing to suppress approximately a ton of marijuana which they allege was uncovered in an unlawful search. We affirm.

Appellants were involved in a smuggling operation involving the importation of large quantities of marijuana from Mexico by boat. Appellants had purchased identical 24-foot, white power cruisers. They then had altered one boat by extending its deck into the forward cuddy cabin area and creating a hidden compartment extending the length of the craft which could be packed with a ton of marijuana bricks. Although each boat had been properly registered to its respective owner, the identification number on the side of Landers’ boat had been changed so that it carried the same registration number, CF9802FB, as that assigned to Hickman’s boat.

One boat would be towed into Mexico by truck, packed with marijuana, and then launched at a Mexican…

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I find myself in agreement with the majority’s position on most of the contentions made by appellants. I agree that the agents had a founded suspicion to stop the load boat, 1 that they need not have given Miranda warnings any sooner than they did, and the appellants had no reasonable expectation of privacy as to the registration number on the decoy boat. I see no reason to speculate on whether the agents had probable cause to search the load boat because the trial court found that Hickman had consented to the search of that boat and his finding is not clearly erroneous. See R.T. 275—76; Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). 2 I must disagree with the major *330 ity’s conclusion that the agents had probable cause to search the decoy boat when they did. However, since Hickman nowhere claimed (as he presumably could not) that he had a possessory interest in the decoy boat, I concur in the majority’s affirmance as to him. See Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 229 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 , 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973). Landers, however, affirmed on the witness stand that the decoy boat was his. R.T. 240-41.…

523 F.2d 323 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Eugene HICKMAN, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Henry LANDERS, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 74-2559, 74-2560. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 2, 1975. Charles L. Goldberg (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendants-appellants. James Meyers, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.OPINION Before BROWNING and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and ZIRPOLI, District Judge. * EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellants were each convicted on four counts of conspiracy to import, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and importation and possession of a controlled substance. The case was tried without a jury on stipulated facts and the testimony of a single witness. Appellants argue that the trial judge erred in failing to suppress approximately a ton of marijuana which they allege was uncovered in an unlawful search. We affirm. 2 Appellants were involved in a smuggling operation involving the importation of large quantities of marijuana from Mexico by boat. Appellants had purchased identical 24-foot, white power cruisers. They…