Campbell v. United States
273 A.2d 252
D.C.
1971
Check Treatment

*1 purchasing claim or whether negli- acted proof without title so

car equities inferior

gently that its Bank v.

those claimant. See Anacostia Fidelity Guaranty, App.D.C.

U. S. & 119 F.2d 455

Accordingly, we remand case pertinent

findings on issues as are such “superior equities” rule. pro- and remanded for further

Reversed

ceedings.

Charles Edward CAMPBELL, Appellant,

UNITED STATES, Appellee.

No. 5359. Appeals.

District of Columbia Court of

Argued Nov. 3, 1971.

Decided Feb. *2 D.C., Rosen, appointed Sol Washington, point they from which presently were court, this for appellant. walking. asking receiving After for and the name, cousin’s the officer testified that Rogers, Atty., E. Asst. U. S. with John he then if they “asked them to would go Flannery, Atty., Thomas whom A. U. S. the sub-station with in- for further [him] Terry Hall, A. and Edwin K. Asst. John vestigation up to follow their story and brief, Attys., the appel- U. S. were on they agreed.” The officers had no knowl- lee. edge any housebreaking, they nor had been advised to be “lookout” KELLY, Before and REIL- FICKLING any suspects. Upon their arrival at the LY, Judges. Associate station, inquiries the officers’ still revealed no or housebreaking other crime with FICKLING, Judge: Associate suspects which the could be connected. appellant’s We reverse convictions for During police investigation, sus- larceny, petit property, destruction of pects in placed upstairs were an unlocked attempted burglary Since there no II. was station, room at the they allegedly arrest, probable cause to seizure a “voluntarily” for approximately remained during illegal television set that arrest was one Though they and one-half hours. prop- it not and therefore could arrest, were not told were that under erly admitted into evidence.1 neither were told that they were free to take the television and leave. afternoon, About 4 in while o’clock routinely patrolling neighborhood in an After an hour the cousin was located car, police operat- unmarked officers having and he companion denied seen the ing in the “old unit” (without clothes uni- in past years.2 However, appellant compan- observed and a forms) appellant companion his were not or released walking together. Appellant open- ion was go. told p.m., were free At 5:30 screwdriver; ly holding companion his reported housebreaking at was an address Recognizing carried a that television set. only suspects 25 feet where the from were televisions are often fruit house- sighted. first The television set was taken breakings, suspicious. officers became by complainant the scene and identified They approached left their car the sus- formally as his. suspects The were then appellant At pects. point dropped that rights. arrested and of their advised it, The recovered screwdriver. officers confronted, appellant, denied when appeal, To this must resolve we ownership. first determine the time of arrest and sei set;3 then, zure of the whether One of the officers testified that he probable there was at that cause time. appellant companion asked how he' his Appellant replied appellant companion obtained the and his Assuming television. precinct, just purchased voluntarily that his hold went to we companion’s cousin; police that that when in suspects the cousin had station, south, point report driven them to point one block to the some Appellant companion’s also that certain contends chased from cousin. his hearsay improperly appel- evidence admitted officer that when the was testified then located, and that there insufficient was evidence was he denied lant’s own cousin companion support appellant’s having We conviction. need not seen the questions. past years. reach these in the transcript too, 3.Appellant argues, 2. The trial the screw- reveals inconsisten- regard cies in in- This con- to whose cousin was driver was also inadmissible. police volved. A since screwdriver officer testified that tention no merit has pur- clearly property. said the television was abandoned sus- a statement housebreaking, under untariness absent fact right his to leave. pect informing him of arrest. An arrest a restraint of free involves whether must now determine We ar A formal declaration intent to dom. to arrest probable cause necessary. Kelley v. United rest is *3 report housebreaking receiving to 396, States, 310 298 U.S.App.D.C. 111 F.2d p.m. at 5:30 it fact, (1961). In in some circumstances that there proper is determine courts to an Probable demands that before cause- express despite dis has been an an arrest prudent police a must have arrest officer by given police a of such intent claimer an a both that grounds reasonable believe v. suspect. to a United officer Seals felony committed and that has been States, 79, 1006 U.S.App.D.C. 325 F.2d 117 suspect responsible.5 Bell v. United was 964, denied, (1963), cert. 84 S.Ct. 376 U.S. 388, 383, States, U.S.App.D.C. 254 F.2d 102 1123, (1964). It neces 11 is L.Ed.2d 982 82, 87, denied, 885, 358 79 S.Ct. cert. U.S. sary the circumstances then to look at all 126, (1958); v. 3 113 Harrison L.Ed.2d surrounding and determine situation States, D.C.App., A.2d 368 United 267 upon a reasonable their natural effect is (1970). question for the court man;4 sup indeed would be “rash he reasonably bear whether the officer acted pose he was not under arrest.” all, he ing in he is mind that if to act swiftly developing fac must often react case, nothing In the instant find im- we not an does tual officer situations. Such proper in the conduct officers’ calm, at detached benefit of Asking questions suspi- their street. after mosphere in law libraries. found Jackson understandably cions were aroused was 260, States, U.S.App.D.C. 112 United v. police commendable action. After the sus- (1962). 302 F.2d 194 pects brought station and their con- story allegedly significant out found was checked One of more factual untrue, however, has been changed. the situation an officer siderations is whether leave; they expressly of They were then told could commission advised of rather, in- nothing particular It is clear that such regarding said their crime. was precedent. freedom and until not a condition remained a house- formation is States, supra; Wright v. breaking report was received. Under these Bell v. United circumstances, States, D.C.App., 833 story 242 A.2d particularly United after their responsi- discredited, evident that (1968). been In fact is had it is clear that frequently performance their duties pre- could not have to leave ble of felt free ex- requires police to act without such cinct. be- press Probable cause to information. emphasize say We are not that we now be can lieve a been committed crime has ing impossible it is for someone to volun readily from factual circumstances. implied tarily police accompany officers to a sta Nevertheless, usually under- it is easier to Fuller tion. Such is not the case. v. Unit police it reason- stand conduct and find States, 264, ed U.S.App.D.C. 132 F.2d 407 knowledge able have actual denied, 1120, (1968), U.S. 89 only 1199 cert. 393 is probability a crime whether 999, (1969). 22 125 do suspect principle S.Ct. L.Ed.2d We is the That criminal. however, say, always that it is more diffi comparison is well illustrated States, cult, impossible, present to find vol- sometimes Clemm United case with v. important It is to consider whether 5. and searches Warrantless arrests suspect pursuant may be also “had reason to believe and did thereto seizures believe that was under arrest.” Seals made certain misdemeanors. D.O. he 5, States, supra United v. at 81 n. 23-306. Code § at 1008 F.2d n. 5. D.C.App., (1970). only away 260 A.2d In Clemm or three doors apartment officer advised that a housebreak- E townhouse at 817 ing Street,1 just into, had occurred at certain address. which had been broken carrying although Two minutes later he saw man the officers were not aware away yards a television set less that until than “>0 fact no- sometime later. Judicial however, may fact, from that He had tice address. knew a crime be of the taken agreed that city burglaries committed and we in a where numerous probable cause housebreaking daily, to believe that the reported man cases are it. The identi- among popular done facts here áre almost sets are the most except cal objects pilferage. for the as to lack information Clemm United States, any housebreaking. D.C.App., We such a consider 260 A.2d lack, case, particular in this scarcely Hence alert critical. Our officers can be *4 society yet becoming often criticized has not deterio- faulted curious when point uncartoned, rated to the say unwieldy where we can that a saw such an item street, man openly, who carries being by carried the hand. large household appliance is probably a Plainly it could not have come

thief. shop. by dealer’s If at sold second hand

Denying individual, private ownership pur- the screwdriver it was odd for the most suspicious; was at allegedly carry through the dis- chaser to the streets him- story may credited added borrowing have to that sus- self rather than car from a picion friend, but did not family raise it to if he or did the level of his not own one. probable cause to believe a crime had instance, In this the officers reversed the committed. Since we probable hold that out, immediately, got direction of their car lacking, cause to arrest was judgments the approached and the men at the other of conviction are end of the block. the two became Whether

Reversed. wary because of must been an what have suspected

abrupt U-turn and occu- that the pants policemen, car REILLY, Judge (dissenting): Associate record appellant, does not The how- show. they approached, heighten po- ever as did question one, is a While close I do suspicion lice by dropping the screwdriver not share the view that consti- defendant’s denying and then appellant it was his. If rights tutional by police. were violated carpen- this tool for ordinary with him transcript shows the de- neither try purposes, he dis- scarcely would Cooper, fendant nor the supposed confed- possession. claimed its him, erate arrested with took the stand. given by Hence testimony trial It seems to me that the officers’ reasons one of the investigating being officers suspicion point at this than were more uncontradicted, wholly must be as taken implausi- confirmed by to arrest true. ble appellant account and then his friend According witness, gave this official he of how happened the television set plainclothesman and driving another vis., in possession, be in their that a cousin Street, west in 800 E Cooper block of South- had sold the set east, walking ap- observed dropped the two men Cooper him in the 900 — direction, parently Southeast, in opposite Street, one block G whence carrying bulky set the oth- Pennsylvania north walked Avenue true, er holding At screwdriver his hand. Ninth Street. If this were attention, caught the time the pair westerly, their proceeding would have been by Pennsylvania accosted a minute or two When later intersection Avenue, 9th officers, approaching Southeast. 256 on E

easterly, Street when first seen Moreover, if witness. the seller had in his automobile at the time set it, place

sold his failure to deliver it to the purchaser strange. lived was circumstances, all ap

Under it would

pear only good that the had not rea suspicious

son probable to be but had cause

to believe the set had been stolen. See States, U.S.App.D.C.

Bell 102 v. United

383, 82, denied, 885, 254 F.2d cert. 358 U.S. 126,

79 S.Ct. 3 L.Ed.2d 113 Allen (1958); States, U.S.App.D.C.

v. United opinion (1968), modify motion to

F.2d 476

denied, U.S.App.D.C. 404 F.2d *5 NICKS, Appellant,

Elaine STATES, Appellee.

UNITED

No. 5333. Appeals.

District of Court of Columbia

Argued. Dec. 1970.

Decided Feb. Borders, Jr., Washington, D.

William A. C., Shorter, appellant. Jr., A. John C., Washington, brief D. appellant. Bernstein, Atty., Daniel Asst. U. S. J. Flannery,
with whom Thomas U. S. A. Hall, Atty., K. Terry A. and Edwin John