united states v. rose, 429 u.s. 5 (1976)
DESCRIPTION
Filed: 1976-10-12Precedential Status: PrecedentialCitations: 429 U.S. 5, 97 S. Ct. 26, 50 L. Ed. 2d 5, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 164Docket: 75-1535Supreme Court Database id: 1976-002TRANSCRIPT
429 U.S. 5
97 S.Ct. 26
50 L.Ed.2d 5
UNITED STATESv.
Ralph Allan ROSE.
No. 75-1535.
Oct. 12, 1976.
PER CURIAM.
1 The operative facts herein are substantially identical to those in United States v.Morrison, 429 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 24, 50 L.Ed.2d 1. Respondent's car was stoppedby Border Patrol agents; a search disclosed marihuana. Respondent lost amotion to suppress and was found guilty after a bench trial. Following this trial,but before sentencing, the District Court, relying upon our decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973),granted respondent's motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals for the TenthCircuit, as it did in Morrison, found the Government's appeal barred by doublejeopardy.
2 In United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232(1975), we held that double jeopardy would not bar a Government appeal ifsuccess on that appeal would result in the reinstatement of a verdict of guilty.The fact that the order of suppression here occurred after a general finding ofguilt rendered by the court in a bench trial, rather than after a return of a verdictof guilty by a jury, is immaterial. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 24, 50 L.Ed.2d1. Double jeopardy, therefore, does not bar an appeal by the Government.
3 We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition forcertiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to thatcourt for proceedings consistent herewith.
4 It is so ordered.