United States v. Willie Foster Sellers, 511 F.2d 1199 (4th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Willie Foster Sellers, 511 F.2d 1199 (4th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: USA v. Rock (nhd, 1992-11-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) USA v. Rock
D.N.H. · 1992 · confidence medium
Cash v. Williams, 455 F.2d 1227, 1230 (6th Cir. 1972); United States v. Sellers, 511 F.2d 1199, 1200 (4th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited as authority (rule) USA v. Rock
D.N.H. · 1992 · confidence medium
Cash v. Williams, 455 F.2d 1227, 1230 (6th Cir. 1972); United States v. Sellers, 511 F.2d 1199, 1200 (4th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kozlowski v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
D. Mass. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Sellers, 511 F.2d 1199 (1 Cir. 1975); Atlantic Cape Fisheries v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., supra. The Court finds that the defendant has willfully, and deliberately, failed to comply with the Court’s order, and that its conduct fully justifies entry of a default judgment.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Willie Foster SELLERS, Appellant
74--1772.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Feb 18, 1975.
511 F.2d 1199
1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16052
Martin L. Brackett, Jr., Charlotte, N. C. (Allen A. Bailey, Charlotte, N. C., [Court-appointed counsel], on brief), for appellant., Michael S. Scofield, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Keith S. Snyder, U. S. Atty., on brief), • for appellee.
Winter, Craven, Widener.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #35,954 of 633,719
Citer courts: First Circuit (2)
PER CURIAM:

After examining the record and briefs and hearing oral argument, we see no merit in this appeal. The principal point urged is that defendant’s fourth amendment rights were violated when the police made a warrantless seizure of two firearms in the trunk of defendant’s motor vehicle, and one of the firearms was used as the basis for the prosecution for illegal possession of an unregistered automatic rifle in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871. The firearms were seized when the operator of a wrecking service, to whom possession of defendant’s car had been entrusted, opened the trunk, concededly not under instructions by the police, observed the firearms and summoned the police to examine them. * We are persuaded that a warrantless seizure was permissible under the plain view doctrine. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).

Affirmed.

*

These facts distinguish the instant case from Cash v. Williams, 455 F.2d 1227 (6 Cir. 1972), on which defendant places heavy reliance. In Cash, the police officers participated in the warrantless search.