Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Tocki

filed: June 8, 1992.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM J. TOCKI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. D.C. No. CR-90-00164-JLQ. Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: Wright, Canby and Wiggins, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

William Tocki appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition. Upon his arrest the police conducted two searches; a legal one of his person, and an unlawful search of his car. The officers commingled the evidence found during the two searches. The court suppressed the evidence found in the unlawful search of Tocki's car. He claims that all this evidence should have been suppressed because, as a result of the commingling, the illegal search tainted the lawfully-obtained evidence. We affirm.

I

Subsequent to Tocki's arrest, an officer conducted a search of his person and found eleven .44 caliber cartridges in his coat pocket. They were placed in a property bag. The officer then searched Tocki's vehicle and found a loaded revolver. Another officer unloaded the weapon, removed six cartridges and placed those in the same bag with the eleven cartridges found in Tocki's pocket.

Tocki was charged with being a felon in possession of a loaded firearm. After the district court granted his motion to suppress the firearm and the cartridges found inside, the government dismissed that charge and did not appeal the suppression.

Tocki was then charged in a second indictment for being a felon in possession of ammunition. The Judge denied his motion to suppress the 17 cartridges. Those included the six that were found in the revolver and previously suppressed.

At a nonjury trial, the government put into evidence all 17 cartridges in the form of two exhibits. Exhibit 1 included eight cartridges with no loading or extraction markings on them, and Exhibit 4 included nine cartridges with loading and extraction markings on them. Tocki claims that Exhibit 4 should not have been admitted in evidence because it contained the six cartridges previously suppressed, and that Exhibit 1 should not have been admitted because it was evidence derived from illegally seized material and was tainted.

II

We review de novo the question whether evidence derived from an illegal search is sufficiently tainted to require suppression. United States v. Johns, 891 F.2d 243, 244 (9th Cir. 1989), (quoting United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc)).

When the government commingles lawfully and unlawfully obtained evidence, the evidence must be suppressed unless the government can identify the specific items lawfully seized. United States v. Finucan, 708 F.2d 838 (1st Cir. 1983). In Finucan, the government seized documents in an unlawful search that were later commingled with lawfully obtained documents. The district court ordered a blanket suppression of all the documents. On appeal, the court re-opened the hearings to allow the government to come forward with clear proof of any records not clearly attributable to the illegal search. Id. at 845.

We reject Tocki's argument that Finucan is distinguishable because in Finucan, identification of the illegally obtained evidence was accomplished through identification of the agent's initials on the back of the documents, whereas here the government used microscopic examination. This is not a relevant distinction. In our case, microscopic examination was necessary to identify the cartridges, and this was not a manipulation of the evidence.

The district court properly allowed the government to examine all cartridges to allow ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.