Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bowler v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided July 10, 1974No. 6939Published

1ConcurrenceNebeker, Associate Judge

(concurring in the result) :

Because I do not view this case as presenting any constitutional issue respecting the confrontation in the apartment house, I express this special concurrence. Constitutional restrictions such as unlawful confrontations between victims of crime and suspects operate against officers of the state and not private citizens acting in dependency of the state. Cf. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Public Utilities Commission v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 72 S.Ct. 813, 96 L.Ed. 1068 (1952); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. United States v. CruikshankSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  4. Public Utilities Commission v. PollakSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  5. Virginia Willys Lucom and Wilson C. Lucom v. Atlantic National Bank of West Palm Beach, FloridaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1965

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API