United States v. Johnson
5th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2022People v. Starnes Ill. App. Ct.
- 2010United States v. Sparks D. Mass.
- 1990United States v. York 5th Cir.
- 1986State v. Halczyszak Ohio
- 1984United States v. Kitowski 11th Cir.
- 1984United States v. DeBardeleben 6th Cir.
- 1983United States v. Butts 5th Cir.
- 1983United States v. Cotton 11th Cir.
- 1982United States v. Beale 9th Cir.
- 1982United States v. Swart 7th Cir.
Cites 2 cases
- Glisson v. United States
- United States v. Johnson
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Leland JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorneys
- Jack W. Torbert, Gadsden, Ala., for appellant.
- Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., R. Macey Taylor, M. L. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Attys., Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
The Court en banc is of the opinion that the panel correctly decided that inspections of motor vehicles performed by police officers, who were entitled to be on the property where the vehicles were located, which in no way damaged the vehicles and were limited to determining the correct identification numbers thereof were not searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; and that alternatively, if either of such inspections constituted a Fourth Amendment search, then no search warrant was necessary because such inspections were reasonable and did not violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers or effects. To the extent that Glisson v. United States, 406 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1969) would find such a search or inspection constitutionally infirm, that decision is expressly overruled by this opinion.
THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge, joined by Chief Judge JOHN R. BROWN, and WISDOM, Circuit Judge, concurring specially:
We believe the inspection of serial numbers involved in this case were searches subject to the Fourth Amendment, but we concur in the result reached by the majority because we believe the searches were reasonable.
. 413 F.2d 1396.