Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States v. Pastore

456 F.2d 99

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-02-28
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: The government asks us to overrule our recent decision in United States v. Price, 447 F.2d 23, 29 (2d Cir. 1971), holding that a defendant charged with possession of stolen goods ipso facto has standing to move for suppression of evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment. We all agree that we should follow the Price decision which decided this issue and which followed Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed.2d 697 (1960).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Pastore. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
UNITED STATES v. PASTORE,456 F.2d 99(2nd Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH MICHAEL PASTORE AND FRANK
PAUL DE ANGELIS, APPELLEES.
No. 382, Docket 71-1450.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued January 10, 1972.
Decided February 28, 1972.
David G. Trager, Asst. U.S. Atty., E. D. N.Y. (Robert A. Morse, U.S. Atty., E. D. N.Y., and Edward R. Korman, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for appellant.

Nathan Kestnbaum, New York City, for appellee Pastore.

H. Elliot Wales, New York City, for appellee De Angelis.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Before MEDINA, KAUFMAN and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The government asks us to overrule our recent decision in United States v. Price,447 F.2d 23, 29 (2d Cir. 1971), holding that a defendant charged with possession of stolen goodsipsofactohas standing to move for suppression of evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment.

[2] We all agree that we should follow thePricedecision which decided this issue and which followed Jones v. United States,362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Combs,446 F.2d 515(6th Cir. 1971), and will consider the precise issue. Judge Medina is of the view that the facts in the case we are now deciding seem to be stronger for the government's position than those inCombs,and that he believesJonesis distinguishable.

[3] Affirmed.Page 123