Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Walter Selinger v. Lester Bigler, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service,appellees

Walter Selinger v. Lester Bigler, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service,appellees, 377 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1967)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1967-05-31
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: Selinger appeals from the denial of his motion to return copies of his records and suppress their use as evidence made pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 41(e). 1 The copies were made by agents of the Internal Revenue Service in the course of an investigation under circumstances which, appellant asserts, amounted to an unlawful search and seizure. The District Court denied relief upon the ground that appellant had given consent to the examination of his records. Appellant contends that his constitutional right to counsel was violated under Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), in that the investigation had reached the accusatory stage (a Special Agent having participated in the investigation), and he was not advised of his rights. This court has ruled against appellant’s contention in Kohatsu v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Walter Selinger v. Lester Bigler, Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service,appellees. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
25 opinions
SELINGER v. BIGLER,377 F.2d 542(9th Cir. 1967)
Walter SELINGER, Appellant, v. Lester BIGLER, Special Agent of the
Internal Revenue Service et al., Appellees.
No. 21116.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 27, 1967.
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1967.
David R. Frazer, John C. King, Shimmel, Hill, Kleindienst Bishop, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellant.

Richard C. Gormley, U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Joseph M. Howard, Burton Berkley, Attys., Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Selinger appeals from the denial of his motion to return copies of his records and suppress their use as evidence made pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 41(e).1The copies were made by agents of the Internal Revenue Service in the course of an investigation under circumstances which, appellant asserts, amounted to an unlawful search and seizure. The District Court denied relief upon the ground that appellant had given consent to the examination of his records.

Appellant contends that his constitutional right to counsel was violated under Escobedo v. State of Illinois,378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), in that the investigation had reached the accusatory stage (a Special Agent having participated in the investigation), and he was not advised of his rights. This court has ruled against appellant's contention in Kohatsu v. United States,351 F.2d 898(9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied,384 U.S. 1011, 86 S.Ct. 1915, 16 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1966). Appellant seeks to distinguish that case. We find no basisPage 543for distinction and regard the decision as controlling here.

Appellant challenges the court's finding of a voluntary consent. In our judgment the finding was not clearly erroneous.

Appellant contends that the court's finding of consent was not sufficient to support a conclusion that constitutional rights had not been violated. In our judgment the finding was sufficient.

Affirmed.
  1. See Hoffritz v. United States,240 F.2d 109(9th Cir. 1956); Rodgers v. United States,158 F. Supp. 670(S.D.Cal. 1958). This is an appealable final order under28 U.S.C. § 1291(1964) per Goodman v. United States,369 F.2d 166(9th Cir. 1966). ↩