United States v. Noah Willis Altizer, AKA Robert Van Horn
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Tamera Nicole King (11th Cir. 2008)
- Matthews v. United States (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1996)
- United States v. Cooper (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1976)
- United States v. Cooper (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1976)
- Van Horn v. United States (5th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. James H. McConnell and Robert Connerly (5th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Nelson Bunker Hunt and W. Herbert Hunt (5th Cir. 1974)
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
Appellant attacks the basis of a search warrant. His ground for attack is that the affidavit supporting the warrant was based on information obtained from his purported wife after her arrest without probable cause. He asserts the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The search was of a trailer-home occupied by appellant and his purported wife. 1 The district court held that appellant lacked standing to assert in his own defense the defalcation of the officers toward the wife. We agree. See Alderman v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 165, 174, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176, 187; Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 491-492, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 458.
The assignments of error based on the alleged illegal arrest of appellant and the search of his automobile are without merit. No product of the arrest was used against appellant in connection with his trial and conviction. The evidence obtained from the search of appel-) lant’s automobile was not improperly admitted. The automobile was not searched at the time of appellant’s illegal arrest, but only upon a search war-, rant which was issued on information also obtained from appellant’s purported wife.
Affirmed.
. The district court found that the purported wife was not in fact appellant’s wife but that they were occupying the trailer-home together.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.