Warning

Info

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

United States v. Lyons

706 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1984)

tl;dr: The Fifth Circuit rejected the volitional prong of the insanity defense, finding that it does not comport with medical knowledge.

1L is really, really hard. Save time, crush cold calls, and excel on exams with LSD's AI case briefs.

We simplify dense legal cases into easy-to-understand summaries, helping you master legal complexities and excel in your studies.

AI Deep DiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Level 1
Click below ๐Ÿ‘‡ to deep dive

Judah Robert Lyons appealed his conviction for drug distribution, possession with intent to distribute, and carrying a firearm during a felony. The court found that the warrantless search of his hotel room was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence obtained from that search was inadmissible. Therefore, his conviction for carrying a firearm during a felony was reversed, but his conviction for drug-related charges was sustained. The court used three principles to guide their inquiry into Lyons' reasonable expectation of privacy in his room and closet. Hotel guests are entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but their privacy expectations are not the same as those of homeowners or tenants. Guests can still expect privacy within their rooms and storage areas. In this case, if Lyons had rented his room in the usual fashion, the search and seizure of his overcoat would have violated his reasonable expectations of privacy. Lyons' expectation of privacy in the rented room provided by the police is comparable to that of an itinerant businessman or a job applicant whose temporary living space is provided by their company or prospective employer. The court concluded that Lyons had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his rented room provided by the police, and the warrantless search of his room and closet was unconstitutional. The "Search Incident to Arrest" exception does not apply, and the accessibility of the area in question to the arrestee at the time of the search is the determining factor in whether the search exceeded constitutional bounds. The search of the closet in this case was unconstitutional because it was beyond the scope of the Chimel standard.

The police cannot conduct a more thorough search unless they suspect others may be hiding nearby to free the arrestee. The gathering, custody, and inventorying of an arrestee's belongings by the police constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the police had conducted a search of Lyon's belongings without his consent, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, the gun that was found during the search could no longer be used as evidence, resulting in the firearms conviction being overturned. However, the narcotics conviction was upheld, and the sentence was sent back for review.

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

๐Ÿคฏ High points ๐ŸคฏKey points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.

Facts & Holding

Facts:The defendant was convicted of knowingly obtaining narcotics. He argued...

Holding:He should have been allowed to present evidence of brain...

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.

United States v. Lyons

Chat for United States v. Lyons
brief-720
๐Ÿ‘ Chat vibe: 0 ๐Ÿ‘Ž
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.