Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

United States v. Peter Gradowski

United States v. Peter Gradowski, 502 F.2d 563 (2d Cir. 1974)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-09-10
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM: We affirm the appellant’s conviction on seven counts of an indictment relating to possession of stolen goods and mail fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(c), 1341-1342. Appellant’s principal ground for appeal is based on the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress documents linking him with the crimes of which he was convicted, which were seized in a warrantless search of his automobile trunk. The search was found by the trial court to have been made with the consent of the Hammers, people at whose house appellant had left his car, to whom he had given the keys, and who — rather than being under any compulsioii from any previous wrongful assertion by the federal agents of authority to search their house — were quite happy to give the car keys to the agents, wanting as they were to be rid of any connection with appellant and his cohort, Mrs. Hammer’s brother. The finding of consent was amply justified by the evidence.

Citator

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

Cited by
49 opinions
UNITED STATES v. GRADOWSKI,502 F.2d 563(2nd Cir. 1974)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. PETER GRADOWSKI, APPELLANT.
No. 1248, Docket 74-1710.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued August 13, 1974.
Decided September 10, 1974.
Page 564
John H. Doyle III, New York City, for appellant.

John N. Bush, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Paul J. Curran, U.S. Atty., S. D. N.Y., John D. Gordan III, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Before OAKES, Circuit Judge, FRANKEL and KELLEHER, District Judges.fn*
PER CURIAM:
[1] We affirm the appellant's conviction on seven counts of an indictment relating to possession of stolen goods and mail fraud. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(c), 1341-1342.

[2] Appellant's principal ground for appeal is based on the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress documents linking him with the crimes of which he was convicted, which were seized in a warrantless search of his automobile trunk. The search was found by the trial court to have been made with the consent of the Hammers, people at whose house appellant had left his car, to whom he had given the keys, and who — rather than being under any compulsion from any previous wrongful assertion by the federal agents of authority to search their house — were quite happy to give the car keys to the agents, wanting as they were to be rid of any connection with appellant and his cohort, Mrs. Hammer's brother. The finding of consent was amply justified by the evidence. Consent to a search by one with access to the area searched, and either common authority over it, a substantial interest in it or permission to exercise that access, express or implied, alone validates the search. United States v. Matlock,415 U.S. 164, 170-171, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); United States v. Gargiso,456 F.2d 584, 587 (2d Cir. 1972).

[3] Judgment affirmed.Page 631
  1. Of the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California, respectively, sitting by designation. ↩