Ella Mae Work v. United States

Act, certain is covered conduct happenings “concerns a combination them. and the drawn from inferences presuppose

part, least, inferences assessing the applicable standards stand- simple, facts. external Yet the ex-

ards are not so severable nature

perience industry nor of such appropriate in- peculiarly as dependent ascertainment ” Brown-

‘questions O’Leary v. of law.’ Inc., 1951, Pacific-Maxon,

507-508, 470, 472, L.Ed. 483. whole, the District

theOn record as a to disturb Court found reason determination,

Deputy Commissioner’s Annotation, A.L.R.

nor we. 413; do Compensation Larson, Workmen's (1952). passim

Law cordingly, Ac- § 57.31 j'udgment is

Affirmed. WORK, Appellant,

Ella Mae America, STATES

UNITED Appellee.

No. 13241. Appeals Court of Circuit. of Columbia

Argued Nov. April

Decided Rehearing In Banc Denied

Petition May 16, 1957.

661 Prettyman, Jr., They Wash- out a warrant. knocked on the Mr. E. Barrett Court), Receiving they opened (appointed by door. ington, answer D. C. no steps” the door appellant. and took into “a few hallway.2 Appellant first floor then Snider, U. S. J. Asst. Mr. Richard past officers, making walked some Gasch, Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver open comment about went door. She Atty. Victor Carroll and U. S. Lewis through they out the door front Attys., Caputy, U. were Asst. S. entered, few a walked a feet across brief, appellee. porch, steps, down a few and turned Judge, EDGERTON, and Before Chief step there down another or two to an Judges. BURGER, FAIIY Circuit porch. area under the she There was by officers, seen who had followed her, putting to make if motions as some- FAHY, Judge. Circuit thing in a trash can located under the having by jury Trial been porch. they nothing saw in her waived, appellant a was convicted Shortly hand. thereafter one Judge on the second count top officers lifted the of the trash can 35 an indictment violation of Stat. containing and took out amended, (1909), U.S.C. 174 § pills question. concealing (1952), 21 U.S.C.A. § entry intentioned, However well illegally narcotics known to have been imported. into the home without a warrant “exceptional was kind not under circum- Before she moved Rule 41 trial dispensing necessity stances” with the U.S.C., (e), Crim.Proc., Fed.Rules Accordingly, for a warrant.3 it was the suppression for the of a as evidence beginning of an unreasonable search: phial containing pills. was The motion “* * * Belief, well however denied, phial and and the contents sought founded, that an article part admitted in evidence as a material dwelling in a house fur- concealed against proof her. The circum- justification for nishes no a search articles came into stances in which these place a of that without warrant. possession are of the United States And searches are held unlaw- dispute: Two officers went notwithstanding unques- facts ful tionably dwelling place1 appellant’s receiv- after showing probable cause. young girl ing known information that -» *» «- Agnello v. United drug prostitute ad- to them to be using They there. ob- was narcotics dict 145. L.Ed. or search of arrest tained warrant Jeffers,4 warrant; also, it is not claimed when States See they to the house first went U.S.App.D.C. an arrest or a search with- to make cause Lee sup- hearing the motion to At the Johnson press, States ad- for the United counsel appellant, defendant, vised the court Jeffers, key was used to In unlock premises. Though the owner was door, but it can make no difference in occupied others than wore some rooms present case the door law opened was building nevertheless was key. without neither case private home. permission there was to enter. There are place entry the officers entered referred restrictions 2. The manner testimony and in the of their even when the officer is some armed with a foyer; (1952), States as warrant. § of the United U.S.C. 3109 brief recently testimony as a whole wo discussed in Woods but think place States, U.S.App.D.C. 351, the inside clear was 240 F.2d 37. part hall, integral home. semi-public lobby was not a or entrance. Agnello leading securing 232 F.2d 354. Both the search and was, Jeffers of con- evidence, here, cases involved the seizure en- try dwelling. traband did not deter private narcotics. This into a In Lee making the effec- States, 156, U.S.App.D.C. Court United 221 95 protection 29, tive the entry; McQuaid Fourth Amend- of the F.2d there was no in against 229, States, U.S.App.D.C. ment unreasonable search v. United 91 rejects Indeed, explicitly seizure. 987, Jeffers F.2d denied, 198 929, certiorari exempt 715, the contra- effort there made to 73 Fish- S.Ct. 97 L.Ed. excluding States, U.S.App.D.C. band from the rule evidence er v. United 92 rights of pub- in the entry obtained violation of 205 F.2d the was into the person store; part the Amendment. accused under lic United. of a in Ellison v. States, U.S.App.D.C. 1, 93 206 F.2d Assuming appellant placed the sought suppressed the evidence was to be phial un- where it was found it would be entry secured before was made. acceptably this naive conclude that immediately attempt by it hide present The articles seized in the case following presence the of the officers not the been abandoned either “to finding phial hall, the by of the the open fields,” done in Hester v. as was officers, the not direct conse- were States, United 265 44 entry. quences The of their unlawful 446, 68 L.Ed. or otherwise aban- accordingly phial used could doned so lose of the the States, su- evidence. Johnson v. United provided by home ment, Amend- the Fourth Columbia, pra; v. District Nueslein The however mean the home. 690; App.D.C. 85, Lee 115 F.2d 73 receptacle phial trash which the was States, supra; United cf. Williams proximity found was in close States, U.S.App.D.C. 237 adjunct house. was an to the domestic whether F.2d need not decide 789. We by appellant. use of home curtilage It was phial would have obtained “general or enclo- within entry, illegal independently of their surrounding dwelling.” Care sure show that since circumstances Cir., v. United F.2d consequence seizure was a direct States, Cir., Walker v. United See began entry which with the search which 447, 449; F.2d Wakkuri v. United imaginary postu- An case did occur. 844; Cir., F.2d v. Com- Childers might happened if upon have what lated Ky. monwealth, S.W. entry is not be- there had been photograph A lower half of the fore us. light premises,6 when of the viewed add the search should We evidence, receptacle was shows that the ar- to a valid were incident seizure porch stoop under the stone tuting or consti- made reason- have rest which part house itself. That necessity for a able without might receptacle partially have been no arrest fact was In there warrant. is immaterial. We visible preceding and seizure. the search at all however, out, point that no evidence in- Re, v. Di it was visible from the dicates that placing phial The in this street. States, supra.5 Johnson receptacle, used, so situated and the cases relied None of to be construed an abandonment of phial persons impliedly involved a situation States unless initiating original entry, expressly recep- authorized to remove the U.S.App. photograph part made In Gibson 6. This was appeal by stipulation own 149 F.2d Gibson’s the record D.C. be- privacy protected the Fourth Amend tween counsel. invaded, as not been the con ment had seized in the house of a co- traband was defendant. trashmen, agents contents, observed leave such as tacle’s something surreptitiously al- house and purposes cast for leged of destruction. ex- case there into the can in circumstances circumstances of contrary, suspicions. cited their abandonment On the to be an not be said could agents was, rath- the failure followed persons; have there to those even hiding. suspicions this course their er, once aroused would amount to dereliction have should The its contents duty part. on their against ap suppressed as evidence been pellant response motion designed The Fourth Amendment was 41(e).7 Rule safeguard right to the of individual’s questions consider other We do not personal privacy in home1 and his his appeal. raised on the by against arbitrary intrusion effects government remanded. Reversed and I find officials. cannot pri- fundamental constitutional Judge (dissenting). BURGER, Circuit vacy garbage pail in the or trash of rooming receptacle is find where I not house the because do I dissent sight the and sei- doors in located out of an unreasonable record by admitted prohibited Constitution. there is an the zure public author- neither invitation to is determined constant the Reasonableness nor the facts the con- piecemeal of ities of the District remove examination a by application rigid formulas; or the ap- the collector of as refuse. If trash tents sanitary inspector resolved an had observed question be must atmosphere “throwing promptly the re- of praisal total the motion” and of “the Rabinowitz, narcotics, I doubt v. trieved the contraband anyone case.” seriously that an S.Ct. contend U.S. un- occurred or it is seizure had I do not believe search and L.Ed. 653. making agents, suppressed as could be narcotic that the narcotics reasonable majority premises would re- evidence.2 Yet quire a call agent guard investigating reported to stand purpose of one narcotic tenants, colleague, garbage her can while his one of of narcotics over use go handy, attempts lid of a trash remove the has there to if he one while home, after the to secure search warrant.3 outside downtown located can 2. The supra, phial says, “placing Jeffers, majority In United States * * * page 95, page 51, receptacle at in this narcotics] U.S. Lof said: an Court not to be construed as abandon- is “ * * * persons tiie Amendment does not unless to im- ment weight unduly oppressive expressly place pliedly law authorized to or remove merely receptacle’s contents, inter- officers but enforcement orderly procedure trashmen, purposes poses of destruction.” impartiality words, aegis saying that nec- of other this court that purposes essary to the beneficent attain the District as to of Columbia trash- ** were abandoned intended. men the narcotics but to the District Columbia as squad narcotic Cooley, Limitations they 610-15 thereby Constitutional concealed and ( 1927). subject have suppression ed. Courts con rendered 8th Fourth Amendment prosecution. refer strued criminal seems to me including only not placing pack- to “houses” very ence act of dwellings other structures age garbage, but used as pail or trash refuse See, g., places of business. e. Gouled v. act abandonment and I would is an not any special different or have rule for 261, 65 L.Ed. 647. narcotics. buildings between such distinction 3. In United States surrounding Rabinowitz, 1950, “is as areas them old as law.” common Hester Justice points dissent Frankfurter’s out that “It L.Ed. 898. is most relevant officers ‘no To me the search and seizure does cotíes. The accused’s reactions to merely become operate “unreasonable” because acts im- of the officers thus sight agents significant in the vestibule mobilize all law enforcement rooming appellant, house4 induced efforts the immediate situation. previously violator, convicted narcotic forget incriminating hasty disposal We must the articles to make a papers private here seized were not evidence. It was or in- not an unlawful ordinary personal effects, or nar but “produced” ap- deed search which which, stamps cotics, in the absence pellant’s action; sight of the it was the permit, can other lawful a citizen eye callers, experienced two whom her moreover, lawfully possess; own or agents, detected narcotic were not home seized in a but panic, caused fear and there is garbage pail. an outdoor The differ reason to believe her reaction would have degree ence in the afford been different she seen the private rightfully possessed property ed approaching side- money, and articles such as counterfeit walk rather than from the vestibule of goods, contraband, stolen and customs rooming her house. regulation in whose or destruction If, majority contends, as the it was the public legitimate interest, a has has entry into the vestibule which invali- again emphasized been time and time subsequent seizure, dated the it would by Boyd Supreme See, g., e. Court.5 logically follow that the conduct of the U.S. 623- any subsequent officers would taint sei- 624, 746; Carroll appel- of zure the narcotics. Thus had States, 1925, lant discarded the narcotics in the cen- 149-153, 45 neighbor’s yard ter in a States, 1947, Harris neighbor’s garbage pail, or in a all in public view, majority theory full to is not sufficient While the distinction any would render seizure of the narcotics right per of to sanction invasion join prepared “unlawful.” I am not to persua home, privacy is a sonal it reducing law enforcement restraints considering whether factor to me sive absurdity. theory This novel to that right privacy of renders an individual’s things: (a) operation several does it of the removal narcotics unreasonable to Court’s runs counter garbage or trash can situated from a doctrine; (b) “open field” abandonment public in view of the house range outside the en- of law it circumscribes constantly open way and available subjective and test of the within a forcement discarding public trash collector. the nar- motives accused’s consent, getting invitation or war- affirmative I see a search excuse ” acknowledgment that vesti- for not it as an there is excuse rant.’ Here semi-public entryway doing a bule was so. might call on tenants or room- who those glosses majority that over fact 4. The ers had a to be. rooming was a house. After receiv- recognized response knocking, Congress ing has also that nar- to their requires degree opened a the unlocked door traffic stricter outer cotics stepped regulation hall or than that of other contra- into a front vestibule passing by appellant, roomers, and evi- band. Narcotic Control used dently person calling July 18, 1956, any room- Act c. Stat. generally Congress of tacit manda- some form consent to increased ers. That way tory permissive did in- common exist maximum enter this minimum pro- the fact that when for narcotic offenses dicated sentences apartment jury out of her did not could the Heath she direct came vided penalty strangers challenge selling two or in for one convicted of heroin object way presence. juveniles. their to While I to 70 Stat. 21 U.S.C.A. Cong. read failure to See also U.S.Code § 176b. presence question Ad.News, pp. of the officers as & 3274r-3322. public, admittedly which is a delicate unreasonable is not considered If it process, society’s vital stake too often is contraband warrants without seize public 8or, way,7 for reasons I cannot overlooked shops,6 justify preservation as essential warrant without a a search after private rights. important held, vehicle,8 I am of our fundamental been as has willing say law as matter Holmes’ Mr. Justice observation10 the trash narcotics from this seizure danger crim- that “there is more re warrant as to is so unreasonable can versing justice escape inals will than that conclusion. the District Court’s subjected tyranny” applies will federal officers it reasonable If a case like this. garage, into the owner’s follow car his residence “a few feet back located curtilage,” open trunk within and with car without warrant owner, seize the consent out ought therein, to be liquor found agents on rou narcotic

reasonable for investigation appel police follow tine narcotics can and seize to a trash lant Joseph WAGSTAFF, Appellant, A. they have reason to when found therein Scher them there. she threw believe America, UNITED STATES of Appellee. 174, L.Ed. 151. The officers’ No. 13672. the Scher and the instant actions both Appeals Court of justified “upon case can what District Columbia Circuit. place in their saw and heard-—what took 3, Argued April 1957. States, presence.” su Scher page 254, pra, 305 59 S.Ct. at U.S. at April Decided 1957. page 176. nor,

Honest need I citizens neither

think, protection privacy want for their limits,

extended to these artificial confessed, presently previously convict-

ed not entitled narcotics violator is guilty

it. Of course the should have the safeguards protective

same as the in- I

nocent and would afford them as much. join I I consider refuse to in what

an unfortunate trend deci- sions this field which strain and same, give guilty,

stretch vastly more than law-

but abiding balancing citizen.9

rights of the individual the whole persons escape guilty more 6. Fisher v. United capable of demonstration than that it App.D.C. 247, de- 205 F.2d 702. police.” invasions ters U.S.App. 7. Lee United People California, State of Irvine 29. D.C. F.2d Brinegar 561. Kepner page Mr. Justice Jackson remarked: “That (dissent). the rule of exclusion and reversal results

Case Details

Case Name: Ella Mae Work v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: May 16, 1957

Citation: 243 F.2d 660

Docket Number: 13241_1

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.