Marvin Don Albright, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 329 F.2d 70 (10th Cir. 1964)

Appellant was convicted upon each count of a two-count indictment charging unlawful trafficking in narcotics in violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704(a) and 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. He appeals, asserting the existence of numerous prejudicial errors in the trial proceedings but making his claims of error in such generalized language¹  that detailed discussion of specifics would be highly speculative as to materiality, unduly burdensome, and perhaps impossible in an appellate opinion. However, we have carefully reviewed the record in view of his claims and for plain error under Rule 52(b) and are satisfied the judgment should be affirmed.

On February 25, 1963, a warrant for appellant's arrest for the unlawful possession of firearms (26 U.S.C.A. § 5851) was issued out of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 1, two Oklahoma police officers, who knew both appellant and of the existence of the federal warrant for his arrest, placed appellant under arrest pursuant to the request of federal authorities. As incident to the arrest, the Oklahoma police immediately searched the person of appellant and found quantities of heroin which subsequently became the subject of the instant prosecution. A motion to suppress the evidence so obtained was denied by the trial court.

The validity of an arrest by state officers for a federal offense, and a search of the person made incident thereto, must be tested against the applicable state law. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 305, 78 S. Ct. 1190, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1332; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 589, 68 S. Ct. 222, 92 L. Ed. 210; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436. Title 22, Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, § 196,²  clearly authorizes the action of the Oklahoma officers in arresting appellant and consequently premises a lawful seizure of the heroin and its eventual and proper admission in evidence. And we find nothing in the record to indicate that the general character of appellant was put in issue by the government or that the court admitted evidence of other and different offenses. Statements by witnesses about the existence of a federal warrant and the remarks of court and counsel in similar vein were limited to the fact that such warrant existed, made no reference to the matter of possession of firearms, and contained no inference that appellant was charged with an independent offense. We find no error in such regard, or at all.

The judgment is affirmed.