Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Emory Newton Brown v. J. O. Kearney, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia and Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, U.S. Board of Parole

355 F.2d 199

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-01-28
Topic
finance

How later courts describe this case

  • finding a parolee is entitled to constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Emory Newton Brown v. J. O. Kearney, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia and Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, U.S. Board of Parole. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
42 opinions
BROWN v. KEARNEY,355 F.2d 199(5th Cir. 1966)
Emory Newton BROWN, Appellant, v. J.O. KEARNEY, Warden, United States
Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia and Richard A. Chappell, Chairman, U.S.
Board of Parole, Appellees.
No. 22760.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 28, 1966.
Emory Newton Brown, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Thomas K. McWhorter, Asst. U.S. Atty., Charles L. Goodson, U.S. Atty., for appellees.Page 200
Before GEWIN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and HUGHES, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court denying appellant's petition for habeas corpus. Appellant contends in his petition that the revocation of his conditional release from the United States penitentiary was based solely on evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure.

While a parolee is entitled to constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure, it is not necessary for us to pass on this question in reaching our decision.

Parole is a matter of grace, not of right, and the revoking of parole is within the sound discretion of the Parole Board. Excluding the evidence obtained by the search and seizure, the record shows there were ample grounds upon which to base the decision of the Parole Board and there was no abuse of its discretion in revoking the parole of petitioner.

The order of the United States District Court in denying appellant's petition for habeas corpus is therefore affirmed.Page 203