US_v_William_Salazar_Soto - NOTE: U.S. vs. William Salazar...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
NOTE: U.S. vs. William Salazar Soto Print Request: Tagged Documents: 1-2 Time Of Request: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 12:45:54 EST Send To: ACADUNIV, 1328ZM TEMPLE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY PHILADELPHIA, PA 19122-6088 Terms: william salazar soto Project ID:
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff/Appellee v. WILLIAM SALAZAR-SOTO Defendant/Appellant. No. 90-3289 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5167 March 10, 1992, * Submitted * After preliminary examination of the briefs, the court notified the parties that it had tentatively concluded that oral argument would not be helpful to the court in this case. The notice provided that any party might file a "Statement as to Need of Oral Argument." See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). No such statement having been filed, the appeal has been submitted on the briefs. March 20, 1992, Decided NOTICE: [*1] UNPUBLISHED ORDER NOT TO BE CITED PER SEVENTH CIRCUIT RULE 53. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reported as Table Case at 958 F.2d 375, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10216. PRIOR HISTORY: On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 89 CR 923. Paul E. Plunkett, Judge. DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, which convicted him of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute pursuant to 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1). OVERVIEW: After receiving a tip that a car registered to defendant was involved in drug trafficking, police observed defendant for 10 days before obtaining a warrant to search his apartment and car. When serving the warrant, defendant escaped out the back door and was subsequently arrested away from the apartment. Defendant appealed his conviction but the court affirmed, holding: (1) the confidential tip, 10 days of surveillance, and defendant's sole possession and control of the car gave police probable cause to arrest defendant without a warrant; (2) a statement by police informing defendant that he was being arrested because of the drugs found in the car was a statement normally attending an arrest and was not intended to provoke comment, so defendant's responsive statement was admissible; (3) testimony of an expert witness was properly admitted to show that ledgers found in defendant's apartment were typical of drug sale ledgers; and (4) evidence of defendant's ownership and his exclusive possession and use of the car over 10 days was sufficient evidence of his constructive possession of 60 kilograms of cocaine found in the car. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Page 1
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/12/2011 for the course CRIMINAL J 101 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '10 term at Temple.

Page1 / 8

US_v_William_Salazar_Soto - NOTE: U.S. vs. William Salazar...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online