United States v. Watson
| United States v. Watson | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 8, 1975 Decided January 26, 1976 |
|
| Full case name | United States v. Watson |
| Docket nos. | 74-538 |
| Citations | 423 U.S. 411 (more) |
| Prior history | Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Concurrence | Powell |
| Concurrence | Stewart (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan |
| Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
For United States v. Watson, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 501 A.2d 791 (1985), see United States v. Watson (DCCA 1985)
United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that decided that a warrantless arrest in public and consenting to a vehicle search did not violate the Fourth Amendment
On August 17, 1972, an informant who was identified as Awad "Tony" Khoury telephoned a postal inspector named Frank L. Barbarick to inform him that one Henry Ogle Watson was in possession of a stolen Bank of America credit card that belonged to a Syed T. Ahmed. Barbarick told the informant to come to his office to inspect the card. When the informant came to his office, he stated to Barbarick that Watson mailed him the card, so that Khoury could purchase him TWA airline tickets with the card. Prior to the case, the informant provided information to the United States Postal Inspection Service 5 to 10 times, all of them being substantiated. These reports also involved Watson. The inspector and informant agreed to set up a sting operation to catch Watson. Upon learning that Watson agreed to send additional cards, the inspector arranged the informant to meet with Watson. A potential meeting was scheduled on August 22, but Watson canceled the appointment. A second meeting took place the day after at a restaurant that was chosen by the informant. The inspector instructed the informant to give a signal to other inspectors if Watson had indeed possessed additional credit cards. Having confirmed that Watson did have additional cards, the informant signaled the inspectors, and they removed him from the restaurant and arrested him. When the inspectors searched Watson's person, no credit cards were found on him. The inspectors then asked Watson if they can search his car, which was near the restaurant, he consented, replying "Go ahead." When the inspector warned him that,"If I find anything, it is going to go against you," Watson replied with the same answer. After finding Watson's car keys, the inspector opened the car door, and found an envelope under the floor mat, containing two credit cards with different names. He was then charged with four counts involving possession of stolen mail.
...
Wikipedia