From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pastore

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 28, 1972
456 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 382, Docket 71-1450.

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.


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). 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 in Combs, and that he believes Jones is distinguishable.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Pastore

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Feb 28, 1972
456 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1972)
Case details for

United States v. Pastore

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH MICHAEL PASTORE AND FRANK…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Feb 28, 1972

Citations

456 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

United States v. Mapp

Nothing announced in Alderman, supra, in any manner weakens the vitality of the Jones rule upon which we…

United States v. De Marco

Although, as we note below, Snyder was the only appellant involved in the discussion immediately preceding…