Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

United States v. Peterson

United States v. Peterson

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

May 9, 1986, Argued and Submitted ; March 9, 1987, Filed

Nos. 85-5167, 85-5168, 85-5173, 85-5174

Opinion

 [*488]  KENNEDY, Circuit Judge:

Appellants appeal their convictions for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in the United States customs waters with the intent to distribute and for conspiracy to destroy goods to prevent seizure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 955a(c), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2232. Following denial of their motions to suppress evidence, appellants entered conditional guilty pleas on the possession charge. The parties submitted the conspiracy charge to the district court on a set of stipulated facts, and the trial court convicted.

In early 1984, the Bangkok office of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) learned from a confidential informant of a plan to smuggle thirty-two tons of a marijuana [**2]  from Thailand. The DEA identified appellant Falk as a participant and notified Thai authorities of his presence in that country. In Bangkok, Thai narcotics authorities wiretapped telephones in Falk's rented apartment, and at a government post office where appellant Peterson made calls. The Thai officials provided information from the wiretaps to the DEA, and, since the tapes were in English, the DEA translated some of them.

The DEA and Thai authorities learned that a ship, the Allyson, was leaving Thailand for the West Coast of the United States. The Allyson stopped in Manila for repairs and then departed, though the Manila office of the DEA and Philippine authorities had been notified of the investigation. Later, the DEA seized the ship in Alaska and found approximately twelve tons of marijuana on board.

The DEA learned that the same persons who arranged for the Allyson shipment would use another vessel, the Pacific Star, for a second marijuana shipment from Thailand. The DEA found that the Pacific Star was en route to the Philippines and notified Philippine authorities. The Philippine Narcotics Command (NARCOM) commenced surveillance on an associate of Falk who [**3]  resided at an apartment in Manila. NARCOM discovered a tri-band radio transmitter was operating illegally from the apartment and began monitoring and taping the radio transmissions between the apartment and the Pacific Star. The frequencies had been obtained from the DEA, and, as many of the transmissions were in code, the DEA deciphered them. Between November 29, 1984, and December 10, 1984, Philippine authorities tapped the telephone  [*489]  in the apartment and provided the DEA with tapes of those interceptions as well. In one of the calls intercepted by the telephone tap, someone talking from the United States referred to "100 south of Cabo."

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

812 F.2d 486 *; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 3125 **

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. TIMOTHY NICHOLAS PETERSON, DARRYL RAY HOOD, STEPHEN ALLEN FALK, and PAUL JULES GOUDEAU, Defendants-Appellants

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Howard B. Turrentine, Senior District Judge, Presiding, D.C. Nos. 85-0040-01-T, 85-0040-04-T, 85-0040-02-T, 85-0040-03-T.

Disposition:  The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

wiretap, authorities, ship, vessel, marijuana, seizure, district court, apartment, radio, boarding, waters, high seas, seized, crew, statutory authority, exclusionary rule, foreign law, transmissions, intercepted, customs, circumstances, appellants', certificate, suppression, conspiracy, telephone, embassy

Communications Law, Overview & Legal Concepts, Theft of Services, Radio Communications, Criminal Law & Procedure, Search & Seizure, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, Derivative Evidence, Privacy, General Overview, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Scope of Protection, Expectation of Privacy, Evidence, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Eavesdropping, Interception & Wiretapping, Business & Corporate Law, Joint Ventures, Exclusionary Rule, Agency Relationships, Agents Distinguished, Joint Venturers, Criminal Offenses, Illegal Eavesdropping, Appeals, Standards of Review, International Law, Sources of International Law, Miscellaneous Offenses, Espionage & Treason, Governments, Federal Government, Domestic Security, Wiretapping, Relevance, Preservation of Relevant Evidence, Exclusion & Preservation by Prosecutors, Employees & Officials, Exclusionary Rule, Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule, Good Faith, Search Warrants, Exigent Circumstances, Warrantless Searches, Exigent Circumstances, Reasonable & Prudent Standard, Legislation, Effect & Operation, Interpretation, Dispute Resolution, Remedies, Exclusion of Evidence, Coast Guard Searches, Transportation Law, Water Transportation, US Coast Guard, Search & Seizure, Controlled Substances, Delivery, Distribution & Sale, Manufacture, Elements, Possession, Intent to Distribute, Business & Corporate Compliance, International Commerce & Trade, Exports & Imports, Tariff Act, Admiralty & Maritime Law, Maritime Forfeitures & Penalties, Territorial Boundaries, Probable Cause, Particularity Requirement, Civil Procedure, Methods of Discovery, Depositions, Oral Depositions, Abuse of Discretion, Preliminary Proceedings, Witnesses, Subpoenas, Weight & Sufficiency