United States v. Fred S. Berryman
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Davis (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1986)
- United States v. Dapolito (1st Cir. 2013)
- State v. Adam Winters (Vt. 2015)
- Collins v. State (Wyo. 1993)
- Celso Lopez Lopez v. M. Aran (1st Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Ramon Rodriguez-Rosario, A/K/A Samuel Colon (1st Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Thomas Streifel, and Daniel J. Quinn (1st Cir. 1986)
- United States v. Pirelli (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1986)
- United States v. Reyes (1st Cir. 2022)
- United States v. Ramdihall (1st Cir. 2017)
- Pueblo v. Reynolds Román (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1995)
- United States v. Donna Thompson, Joyce Rockhold, and Alonzo Campbell (9th Cir. 1990)
- Celso Lopez, A/K/A Celso Lopez Lopez v. R.D. Garriga (1st Cir. 1990)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez (Mass. 1988)
- United States v. Felix Aviles (4th Cir. 1987)
- United States v. William Ferreira (1st Cir. 1987)
- United States v. Gallego-Zapata (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Fred S. BERRYMAN, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 82-1194.
United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit.
Reheard Sept. 7, 1983.
Decided Oct. 11, 1983.
Karnig Boyajian, Boston, Mass., for defendant, appellant.
William F. Weld, U.S. Atty., Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, COFFIN, BOWNES and BREYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
After reviewing the record in this case and the panel's opinions, 717 F.2d 651, we conclude that the district court's judgment should be affirmed for the reasons set forth in the panel's dissent. This conclusion rests primarily upon our having found that Berryman's decisions to answer the DEA agents' questions and to allow them to look through his bag were voluntary. Berryman, of course, could have refused to speak with the agents. As the United States Attorney acknowledged at oral argument, such a refusal would not, and could not, have provided any legal justification for even brief involuntary detention. The exercise of one's constitutional rights is not the sort of "specific and articulable fact[ ]," Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), that will itself, or in combination with other less-than-sufficient facts, justify a Terry -type investigative stop. Berryman, however, did not choose to stand on his rights. He voluntarily answered the agents' questions. Under these circumstances we see no violation of the Constitution.
The decision of the district court is
Affirmed.
BOWNES, Circuit Judge (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion of the original panel.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.