United States v. Patrick Lee Murphy
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Shelton (District Court, N.D. Mississippi 2001)
- United States v. Donald Lee Green (9th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. Raleigh Beard (9th Cir. 2015)
- United States v. Charles E. Hamilton, United States of America v. Charles Eugene Hamilton (9th Cir. 1986)
- United States v. Willie Sledge and Doni Williams (9th Cir. 1981)
- Seymour v. Perkins (District Court, D. Utah 2022)
- United States v. Manafort (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2018)
- United States v. Jenkins (5th Cir. 1995)
- United States v. Mary Jane Jenkins, Evan Peter Pigman, Jo Ann Rochelli, David Carl Stubbs, Rickie Herbert Ranney, and Larry Wayne Malady (5th Cir. 1995)
- United States v. Chirichiello (1st Cir. 1994)
- United States v. Chirichiello (1st Cir. 1994)
- USA v. Chirichiello (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1993)
- State v. Walton (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
- United States v. Curcio (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1988)
- United States v. Felton (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1984)
- United States v. John Buettner-Janusch (2d Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Louis J. Cella, Jr., Stephen R. Evans, Theodore Schiffman, Defendants (9th Cir. 1978)
- United States v. La Monte (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1978)
- State v. Miller (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978)
- Commonwealth v. Wahlstrom (Mass. 1978)
- United States v. Manoon Gulma, United States of America v. Sukit Apichattham (9th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Tussell (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1977)
- United States v. Phifer (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1975)
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
OPINION
Murphy was convicted of possession of goods stolen in interstate commerce, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. The evidence established that large amounts of stolen goods were discovered in a trailer located in a warehouse in Orange, California. The warehouse was under lease to Murphy. Murphy contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered by officers in their search of the warehouse.
Murphy concedes that his employee, one Tucker, consented to the search of the warehouse but claims that this consent was not voluntary. Applying the “totality of all the circumstances” test of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), we hold that Tucker’s consent to the search was freely and voluntarily given. Prior cases in which our court has found that consent to search was involuntary have involved circumstances much more coercive than those found to exist in this case. See United States vs. Rothman, 492 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1973); Channel vs. United States, 285 F.2d 217 (9th Cir. 1960).
Alternatively, Murphy argues that Tucker lacked the authority to consent to the search. It is pointed out that Tucker had no status as a lessee of the warehouse and was given the key to the warehouse by Murphy only on occasions when Tucker was to perform work on the premises. In considering all of the circumstances surrounding the search, we attribute special significance to the fact that Murphy delivered the key to Tucker. We conclude that Tucker’s custody of the key gave him sufficient dominion over the premises to enable him to grant the necessary consent. Since Murphy himself put the premises under the immediate and complete control of Tucker, who voluntarily consented to the search, we hold that the search was not unreasonable. See Gurleski vs. United States, 405 F.2d 253, 260-263 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 2140, 23 L.Ed.2d 769 (1969); United States vs. Eldridge, 302 F.2d 463 (4th Cir. 1962).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.