Harold B. Dorman v. United States

BAZELON, Judge, and Chief Before TAMM, McGOWAN, WRIGHT, LEV- MacKINNON, ENTHAL, ROBINSON, Judges, sitting en ROBB, Circuit banc. BANC EN REHEARING

ON Judge: LEYENTHAL, Circuit men four On December clothing District of store robbed Appellant tried Dorman was Columbia. along Jones, co-defendant being par- two were convicted received ticipants the crime. years up nine under a sentence sen- Jones was Youth Corrections Act. years prison. nine tenced to three to affirmed of this court A division Jones, but reversed conviction ground gunmen persons ushered six of Dorman on conviction room, stripped rights when the the stock them were violated his rings, billfolds, in their bound house without a warrant watches entered his seized, him, them around and saw the ankles wrists with to arrest order nearby rack, any arrest, clothes a suit of neckties taken put in was made lie on the Two the them from the robbed store floor. grant- stockroom, court robbers remained in the This the trial. evidence pointed guns request en banc and at the victims made ed the Government’s about, rummaged rehearing appeal, the and threats. The other two of Dorman’s proceeding store, looking money the remand clothes and record includes a During pursuant period tо of a Court certain sizes. this held in the District the this court after shot they fired in back room “when order the entered banc, rehearing gun granting passing en from one the were the to find- and heard were another.” wherein witnesses pertaining ings on various issues made An from officer traffic across obtain a to failure of the emerge the store saw three men with warrant. pursued their arms full clothes. He them, one of but Po- was unsuccessful. Night-Time Validity I. Warrantless swiftly scene, lice were called to the and Entry Dwelling To of Defendant’s they investigated premises from the 7:00 Robbery Arrest him for p. to m. 7:45 Detective found Blaneato changing pair on the floor of a room a A. Pertinent Circumstances corduroy pants, copies dark and of a pertinent These are the facts probation showing monthly report the appear transcript from the of the trial name and address of defendant Dorman. suppress and to the Dorman’s motion Apparently left store wear- Dorman clothes, supplemented by suit the re- ing the blue sharkskin suit. proceedings. mand phoned Detective Blaneato the Identi- Friday Shortly p.m. after 6 eve- a shortly ficatiоn Bureau and after 8:00 ning, four men armed entered Carl’s p. m. he contained learned that files Shop. three Men’s In the store were photograph. Dorman’s three He drove salesmen, customers, two man and his arriving headquarters, victims to wife, shop. a co-owner of the and m., pho- p. 8:30 the victims made Dorman, pairs. men entered one of tographic of Dorman. identification wearing store, two first proce corduroy In pants, established asked sales- accordance with blue-black dure Assistant man if called the Holmes he could a size detective see designated Attorney blue suit similar one States sharkskin to By purpose, report returned the facts window. the time Holmes case, pro approval a suit from the room the order obtain such stock store, ceed other men had entered the with the arrest be two gun, announced, guilty Dis “This is lieved of the crime. As the drawn a Dorman, it.” trict find drawn stated remand who also ings, respon gun, practice suit. insures that a relieved Holmes of give legally were sible trained individual will Holmes and other five victims preliminary approval his the mat herded into stock while before roоm magistrate. weapons freely The es Jones ter is referred to a brandished. respon gun pointed procedure another at the head of tablished designated sibility poked couple Assistant salesman and him with it mag gun Attorney put locate times. One of the States robbers of an customer, Rich- istrate or for the chin of issuance the male ards, said, Blanca- put appropriate look,” warrant. Detective “Do to ac gun began up typing affidavit out the 'to his chin to his head move company application so he would observe them. point, finished heard from When he was about “We a noise one warrant. Attorney- States back bedrooms.” the belief that the Assistant United magis hiding within, him that no Dorman him and told called available, past felo but that since brushed Mrs. encoun- Dorman and trate was involved, ai' ny Allen, could be tered one a man friend of Mrs. apartment, The District a warrant. Dorman who lived rested without findings coming forth

Judge’s set out a bedroom. remand recol designated had no Assistant Blancato the officers continued evening, of the events lection police- their search for Dorman. Some Commissioner, if the then U.S. rooms, men be- looked other prob called, that he testified would have away pulled enough hind a far sofa apparently be ably not available Blancato wall conceal man. nights Friday dinner with had he cause pushed open slightly-ajar a the door of of the of Court his The mother. walk-in his closet with the barrel of designated pur for the General Sessions “right shotgun. closet, in the Inside authorizing that pose warrants of us,” front of was a un- blue The suit. Andrew Honorable late time the was hemmed cuffs were visible beneath prior remand died He Howard. jacket. of suit The suit bore label proceeding. Shop. Men’s Carl’s left of his men in Blancato two findings cir- The remand set forth the apartment apprehend he to if Dorman opinion of cumstances The credited returned. District Court Judge justified District Dorman’s arrest his with the ac- statement that po- The without a warrant follows: it quiescence of Mrs. Dorman because positive lice identification three had of danger and of shoot-out lessened the a eyewitnesses, positive of evidence and preferable to stake- for a that reason was They had address. Dorman’s current out. might flee reason to believe his of he of the loss when became aware Requirement B. General Need for of They identifying probation papers him. Warrant To a Enter Home Without were associates Dorman and his knew In a Consent To Order Search for dangerous they had were armed and — Suspect Sought Arrest physically The victims. their abused p. likely place police after is to him The acted most find issue whether unreasonably, District m. his The and in home. violation consti- testimony rights, they proceeded, tutional credited their when to purpose objective home was of the visit his furtherance their arrest They suspect they probable no additional needed had be- arrest him. cause to physical felon, evidence. lieve an armed make warrentless, unconsented, non-forcible p.m. About 10:20 arrived entry evening, his late in the into home home, at Dorman’s and knocked twice hours after the of- at a time some few identity. announced their Dorman's they ob- hour after fense and within an night- door, mother answered the in her eyewitness identification tained gown. they When the said magistrate nоt suspect, when a and looking son, for her she told them readily available. he had been left min- there but had some explicitly earlier, suggested utes not Supreme if has and Court question.1 her, did The literature passed believe come on this could permissibili- and look At in discussion themselves. abounds reasonably Harlan, Justice believed arrest Jones v. United upon probable within, cause that felony, circumstances under noted that “whether committed nighttime why appears dwelling forceful an into a reason where no warrant, intru- without Freedom from ty without consent. of an arrest analysis any dwelling ar- focus- sion into the or if home is little but dwelling pur- chetype privacy protection se- into a However, think cured pose we an arrest. Fourth Amendment.4 appli- general their pertinent principles, and a home not be searched us, fairly to are notwithstanding case before cation probable Fourth apprehended from the be cause.5 keeping in mind precedents, Amendment province It is not our to reconsid circumstances, permutations many pertinent er Supreme must taken be variables requirement dеcisions.6 The of war determination ultimate account rant, generally understood, as now rests reasonableness. primarily conception proclaims: Fourth Amendment judicial officer, prosecutor not the right people to secure “The police, to determine whether the secu houses, papers, ef- persons, their rity society, of our which is essential fects, against unreasonable searches law, the maintenance of a rule re violated, seizures, no shall quires right privacy yield issue, upon but shall Warrants right entry, seizure, affirmation, cause, supported by Oath specification what limitation and en of describing place particularly to try may appropriate be and reasonable. things searched, persons and the or pen point Justice Jackson’s made the to be seized.” memorably oft-quoted passage 10, States, Johnson v. United pro 333 U.S. Fourth Amendment The 13-14, 367, 369, right 68 436 right S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. privacy. a This is tects a of (1948): recognized increasingly in deci is involving provisions this and other sions point The of the Fourth Amend- protection core as a of the Constitution ment, grasped by is not which often against safeguarding аll citizens unwar officers, zealous is not it denies by police other ranted intrusions support law enforcement of government officials.2 usual inferences which reasonable men pro protection Amendment draw Its

The Fourth evidence. protection requiring in a infer- consists those vides even to arrest though re public place, de- in such cases ences be a neutral and drawn being only magistrate quirement of is instead tached require judged by engaged in the and there is no additional the officer cause competitive enterprise A ferret- ment of to a warrant.3 often of recourse ** * right of greater placed, however, is out burden crime. dwelling a home into ficials a or officers to thrust themselves who enter Agnello sought” 5. said in v. United have been Justice Butler warrant could not States, 33, “grave question.” 6: 46 a 269 S.Ct. constitutional U.S. raises 499-500, “Belief, founded, well that dwelling at 1257. however sought article is concealed a 479, Connecticut, 381 U.S. 2. Griswold justification a no house furnishes (1965); 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 place warrant. 557, Stanley Georgia, 89 not- are held unlawful And such searches (1969). 1243, 22 542 S.Ct. unquestionably withstanding show- facts ing probable 122 U.S. Ford & Kimble v. United cause.” (1965). App.D.C. 259, 352 927 tending scholarship show Agnello is There 269 4. See U.S. v. United key provisions ; (1925) earlier some of the Dis 145 L.Ed. S.Ct. necessity ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍misread U.S.App. a warrant Little, trict of Columbia v. Taylor, history. Two T. (1949), lessons of aff’d on 468, F.2d 13 D.C. Interpretation in, Constitutional grounds, Studies U.S. other 38-41 94 L.Ed. 599 * * * might concern, weap- grave yield suspect which of the home is danger. escape only means of but to a so- ons or other the individual not ciety in reason- to dwell which chooses question to the now come security from sur- and freedom able general requirement of a whether right privacy When the veillance. entry a condition for warrant as right reasonably yield to the must subject exception where is house to an rule, be decided search judicial officer, making entry purpose of is for the by policeman suspected we felon. As an arrest of a agent. enforcement Government requirement point out, shall later importance general need for and where circum a warrant be excused regard warrant, Fourth of a delay, like that stances do not tolerate issues, of con is a doctrine Amendment obtaining warrant, of an incident to increasing vigor. Ca tinuing making But the basic officer an arrest. Court, Municipal safeguard mara v. principle, the constitutional L.Ed.2d 930 that, exceptions, assures with room for precedent set the Court overturned security privacy of their citizens only eight years previous7 hold that judicial deter homes officer unless ap to administrative overridden, searches incident mines that must be subject inspections are plicable in case of requirement.8 property, also in case search for but suspect. This in order to arrest a light purpose In the is the that was declared rule prohibition “un- Fourth Amendment's problem, Prettyman, a student seizure, searches and reasonable” 9 in after consideration authorities security safeguard privacy U.S.App. States, 104 Morrison United against arbitrary invasions individuals by (1958) : D.C. 262 F.2d officials, government reit- the Court carefully “except erated that in certain house to entered the The officers cases,” of defined classes of a search sure, was, It to be make a search. private proper property consent than the rather search for a by a authorized is “unreasonable” unless proper- of search for article usual an 528-529, (387 87 valid warrant at U.S. ty, The officers it a search. but was being 1731), exception at S.Ct. indubitably their in clear made this inspec- permit “prompt viewed as one to testimony; into the house went * * * tions, even without a warrant It is true to look for Morrison. emergency (387 in at situations.” U.S. they found if him intended to arrest 539, 1736). 87 S.Ct. him, objective and so the ultimate urges an arrest. The Government v. Cali- also take note of Chimel 2034, requires that we fornia, that this latter fact apply 23 395 89 U.S. pertaining to (1969), the rules of law im- L.Ed.2d 685 where the Court governing rather than the rules portantly scope arrest of a restricted the factual But the search was premises search. prerequisite search of that could be arrest; it was ground to an without a warrant entry; objective the offi- arrest, first of it to restricted was incident to an house. in immediately cers did fact search access the area within ; (1958) Maryland, 7. Frank v. Little, 85 U.S. of Columbia District L.Ed.2d 877 App.D.C. 242, 246, F.2d Pretty- Judge of 8. This was conclusion grounds, on other affirmed Little, of in District Columbia man 94 L.Ed. 599 supra note opinion approach The of the Little recently by Supreme adopted Prettyman particular ac took Court, supra Municipal note opinions Camara v. his Smith 48, count of U.S.App.D.C. and text. denied, cert. They possible unifying entered to a search as It is make that some such necessary prerequisite possible theory ar- to field be attainable. But it probably analysis pro rest. serves focus clarity justification vide for a un- principle applies an The same entry purpose of warrantless for arrest entry purpose of ar- consented put particu if there is one side though rest, as in case even involving, say, lars of cases administra house no intent to search the searches, exception tive where has suspect property, and the search for “emergency,”11 been cast terms or specifically was not visualized involving any of homes searches ele prospect inherent outset but was a entry purpose ment of of arrest. exceptions Subject the situation. recognized always The courts have princi- circumstances, that constitutional involving case of arrest as a ease its privacy ple prohibits invasion of the own considerations.12 by unless unconsented the home by a has been determined need therefor scope of warrantless searches in warrant. cases not inconsidera- reaches up- ble breadth virtue of the doctrine Principle Urgent Need C. The holding inci- search made warrantless Justify- Establishing Exception an arrest, to a dent lawful where the area Entry An ing Make To Warrantless purpose pro- serve to the Case Arrest in Situations like arresting escape tect the officer or avoid Bar destruction evidence.13 oper principle need judicial justify in issu officer ates to excusing Another doctrine failure to authorizing an invasion a warrant obtain a warrant in case of for ar- home, provided he privacy of a rest has cast of “exi- been terms probable cause acts within bounds gent circumstances,” “necessitous nar and reasonableness. Another circumstances.”14 some decisions While need, principle principle rower pursuit,” also refer condition of “hot justify need, operates urgent also this term is not a rather limitation but requisite need entries with warrantless exigent an kind of illustration officer and not determined justifying entry circumstanсe without a court. suspect.15 arrest a every stating precedent There is Hayden, 294, In Warden 387 U.S. v. case, mis- or his whatever the officer 1642, (1967), 87 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 782 governed by requir- sion, principle is majority conspicuously avoided ing ma- unless “an immediate a warrant put pursuit” “hot forward formulation jor performance of af- in the crisis concurring judges, opportunity to and instead fords neither time nor magistrate.”10 apply danger to a of an armed focused on rob- supra Little, 10. District of Columbia v. “in instances failure most U.S.App.D.C. 246, requirement 85 comply 178 F.2d at 17. the warrant applica only exigent This standard was reiterated as can be excused circum- house, ble Chappell to forcible stances.” See also v. United Chappell States, U.S.App. 360, v. States, U.S.App.D.C. 356, United 119 342 119 356, 359, 935, (1965). (1965) ; D.C. 342 935, F.2d 938 v. F.2d States, Jackson United U.S.App.D.C. 260, Municipal supra. Court, 11. Camara v. ; States, (1962) Morrison v. United Including, e.g., Agnello 12. v. United U.S.App.D.C. 352, 262 F.2d 449 supra, note 5. California, 752, 13. v. Chimel 395 U.S. Terry 1, 20, Ohio, 15. Thus 2034, S.Ct. 23 L.Ed.2d 685 1879, refers 20 L.Ed.2d 889 Terry See, e.g., Ohio, exigent pursuit to hot instance of an 20 L.Ed.2d 889 circumstances. large, 298-299, light saying (pp. 87 S. in the ber of those circumstances 1645-1646): pp. and that need that the warrantless Ct. meets test of search the ultimate avoid- agree Appeals with the Court ing under Fourth condemnation war- without that neither Amendment as While “unreasonable.” robber, nor the to search for the rant the numerous and fact sit- street varied for him warrant search without permit comprehensive do uations catalog Under circumstances invalid. of the these cases covered case, exigencies situa- “the terms, may it to refer to useful imperative.” made that course tion are mate- number of considerations that States, 335 U.S. McDonald v. rial, particular pertinence in and have 451, 456, 93 L.Ed. the case at bar. that an police informed place, First, grave involved, robbery and armed had taken that a offense is suspect particularly 2111 Co- crime of vio- that the had entered one is a See, g., Hayden, before su- coa Lane less than five minutes lence. pra e. Warden ; they They reason- reached it. acted McDonald v. U. ably house L.Ed. 153 when entered S. began (1948) (concurring opinion of the de- of Justice to search a man given Jackson). scription the restrictive had been Contrariwise likely rob- weapons requirement in the more which had used for warrant is retainеd, proceed- bery might against or them. and the need for use to be require lacking, found Fourth Amendment does delay course police some- officers to the offense has been when is what investigation “com- so would an if to do times referred one of endanger crimes, gravely gambling.16 placent” their lives like Speed was essen- here lives of others. inter-related, Second, obviously only thorough tial, suspect reasonably is believed to that the weapons persons could house for Delay in armed armed. Hayden insured have only danger felon well increase present that the man community meanwhile, officers or to the weapons could had control all consideration time arrest. This against or to effect an be used them materially justification for bears escape. entry.17 a warrantless “exigent merely circum Third, Terms like that there exists not “urgent cause, useful req- need” are probable stances” minimum underscoring heavy burden has been uisite even when a warrant showing beyond need issued,18 to show that but a clear delay incident cause, including “reasonably that could not brook obtaining warrant, information,” trustworthy to believe States, e.g. 410, Spinelli States, 16. As in Accarino v. United U.S. 18. v. United 393 U.S.App.D.C. 394, (1969). 584, F.2d 456 85 179 21 89 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 637 (1949), suspects Spinelli tip un- been where the had in the unidentified of an weeks, sufficiently was for and there der surveillance cor formant not held entry probable a forcible without announcement roborated cause to establish purpose. quotes Hearsay may the lan- Accarino an arrest warrant. Little, supra, sufficiently guage note ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍discussed other items corroborated Trupiano States, Compare probable 334 United cause. v. to establish context 699, 1229, California, 23, 36, 1663 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. 83 U.S. Ker U.S. v. 374 States, (1948) ; (1963) ; 1623, Giordenello v. United 10 L.Ed.2d 726 1245, 307, 480, Draper States, 2 L.Ed.2d 357 U.S. 358 U.S. ; (1958). 329, (1959) 313, 1503 L.Ed.2d 327 79 3 306, States, Lovelace v. United Chappell Hayden, supra; 17. Warden (5th 1966). Cir. 356, States, U.S.App.D.C. v. United (1965). 352 F.2d 935 (see place entered note that he is in the crime suspect committed that 20). involved.19 that strong Fourth, to believe disturbing reason We see no basis for being premises suspect is in the that judgment of the District Court presented entered.20 ex the kind of at bar case urgent igent need circumstances suspect Fifth, a likelihood entry justified Dorman’s an into apprehended. swiftly escape if not

will delay incident home without entry, Sixth, the сircumstance positively had been warrant. consented, made though not had committed one identified as who may entry some peaceably.21 Forcible He and his associates of violence. crime fact justified.22 But instances be vic and abused their had armed been entry in show was not forcible aids knowlege special no There was tims. attitude reasonableness home, prob concepts of that he but identifying police, by conduct. prima fa and reasonableness able cause oppor mission, give person an their looking justify home for a man at cie tunity himself without to surrender p. after 10 m. struggle avoid the invasion and thus to possibility at least There was entry privacy into involved if delay might permit escape, when and home. papers suspect realize his came are Another factor taken factors left behind. These been though account, decisively, somewhat, in more than works not offset but direction, entry— one relates time after circumstance that night. On the one of- p. whether it is four hours after m. came some develop, hand, pur- the late as we shall later of hot not a case fense. This was delay per may (and suit, hour underscore the stretched is to be unless that term of) obtaining meaning. haps impracticability beyond But all reasonable warrant, justify pro underlying serve to similar hence factors were ultimate ceeding pur- the other one. On in a involved case hot to those dealing hand, the fact is made at still suit. night crime, particular relatively prompt ar- concern its raises over recent reasonableness, might as indicated Justice the instru- and recover rest locate opinion Harlan’s Jones of the crime be- mentalities fruits supra, States, may disposed de de- And the elevate cf. fore otherwise gree making, required, lay as cause both of their own showing implicating showing suspect, might reason- undercut Ohio, 89, 91, 19. Beck v. S. 2 L.Ed.2d 1552 (1964). Ct. 41(e) There is some indication com that Rule It be noted degree proof mon law the in hand was au- Procedure Federal Rules of Criminal determining property material whether in merely probable warrants thorizes “posi- night only cause ar if are the affidavits rest, authority “breaking.” pi-operty but See is in house tive” that Prettyman’s opinion in Accarino named. States, U.S.App.D.C. 394, v. United States, Chappell See v. United 398-400, 179 F.2d 460-61 App.D.C. 356, 359, 342 F.2d comprehensive cited discussion in (1965) ; Ellison U.S. v. United Miller v. United App.D.C. 206 F.2d 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 pertinent special in The considerations (1958). entry are discussed ease forcible the of Hayden, supra; Washing- 20. Warden v. opinions the Accarino and Miller in States, U.S.App.D.C. ton v. United supra note 19. (February 1969) ; 414 F.2d 1119 States, U.S.App.D.C. California, Smith v. United Ker v. U.S. denied, 254 F.2d cert. L.Ed.2d 726 encountered, respect delay for how- have “That The courts ableness. controlling ever, whether intelligent activities is enforcement law the securing required; they a war- in the are warrant police, as situated the of always and some additional for involves campaign law rant line the front States, supra po- depicts plainly Chappell v. time.” United order, this case and sys- steadily engaged and note 21. lice officers pur- and tematically in the identification police that a aware Responsible are Last, suspects. but criminal of the suit procedure responsible accords to peacefully, least, entry the intelligent police law latitude for the the purpose. announcement and after absolute dis- but enforcement withholds approach secur- cretion is the sound upon peaceable The search made and of law overall combination the only the the locate to inspiration justice demo- the that suspect, suspicion the noise society. cratic suspect in hid was made heard ing. an arrest If the to make p. 8:30 it was at about And so reasonably in lawful, police acted m., pro- in established accordance with looking in behind and to lo sofas closets began dure, typing Blancato Detective suspect. was no rum cate the There warrant, up application for an arrest maging drawers, etc., cloud Attor- while the Assistant States police. purpose of Since hold we ney appropriate steps took to locate police reasonably law acted magistrate. fully when the action without took ex- circumstances that unfolded entering warrant house and obtaining delay tended the incident searching appropriate in Dorman considerably, and, in view warrant objection places, no valid can be made unduly. police prosecution, conduct, their in the course of when assigned judge to this General Sessions in the closet don’t know not available. readily saw uncuffed trousers identi why, but even most reasonable coming fiable as that had store best-regulated procedures sometimes robbed, seizing clothing been not this seams, question yawns withstanding of a absence warrant. consequence. It was a arises as to States, Harris v. United night Friday (part-time) and the com- 992,19 available, possibly was not missioner having dinner at his mother’s. Delay That Would Have Been D. Obtaining

Involved In a Warrant suggested It has been these complete analysis prosecution To we must con- circumstances question: try, sider the other of the with all dili- side no choice but delay gence, what would been from other have to obtain warrant involved obtaining Although pro- There warrant? are emer- sources. U.S.C. § gencies, including close-running any justice judge vides that hot or pursuit, delay judge mayor which cannot brook or even a state However, city, may any of minutes. of a the case offense before us, involving against investigation practice it did as the United required jurisdiction visit central the U.S. Commis- magistrаtes), office in (now order to obtain sioner information (here, judges photograph), identification of Sessions of the Court of General thereby judges facilitated access the cham- United States District upon respect commissioner, bers of a called there Court are testimony prosecu- is no the kind short issuance warrants. Had delay persisted making any probably inherent tor ap- he could have lo- plication judges. for a cated these one of Counsel would be intoler- many Burger able. As stipulated has noted: original panel judges opinion. advised, justices of the are We argument by a warrant to issue both at authorized documents States lodged (excluding court, judges prosecu- of General Ses- with the though skeptical sions), may tion officials one cock have conferences with magistrates eye the two new of knock at the scenario authorized for judge of, say, pursuant of of the this District door Federal Appeals, Magistrates magistrates to ask him and Patent Act. The Customs have systematic up deter- set unfamiliar task of take on the schedule for availa- mining bility home, duplicatе an affidavit established at where a whether set of probable may seals for an arrest warrant. It cause maintained. well result represent greater that this will availabil- then-ap- purposes the practical For all ity prior taking system, fact than the equiva- provided plicable procedure magistrates into account that for these assignment judge on trial lent of a state represents the issuance of warrants applications evening of consideration for prime activity, pursued diligently, to be hap- With warrant. the arrest duty superimposed rather than an extra particu- unavailability this penstance of daytime occupation. any trial taking reasonable, night, it was lar event, begun regu- an effort has been already relat- circumstances account availability mag- larize and enhance of C), (under an arrest to make ed istrates outside normal office hours for delay to lo- risking incident further issuing purpose of arrest and search cating issue warrant. another warrants. materiality noted have Other courts obtaining a difficulty of of screening procedure contemplates morning early night,23 or in late at Attorneys States Assistant United work- of normal start before the hours make enforcement officials law before ing day.24 magistrate application at such States home. Each month saying have no basis Attorney prepares a of Assistant list applications system of consideration Attorneys dur- available United States it unless warrants is “unreasonable” night at over week- that month provides term of court a scheduled enforcement offi- for access law ends question night. involved is a What is secure cials who wish to resources, possible di- allocation copy A of that list search warrants. needs of resources from version Depart- Metropolitan Police sent to justice. higher interest of stand ment, enforce- and the various other law did in- The Court of General Sessions may agencies need ment who system experiment in 1968 deed with a service, Capitol Police and the Park night and over of Court sessions FBI, Police, the field local offices weekends, gave experiment up Inspector, Bu- Postal Secret Service reaching the conclusion Drugs. reau Narcotic overall to a diversion amounted judges busy schedules courtroom considerations al In addition assignment activity an minimal ready mentioned, procedure a warrant accomplishment. for late hours and available weekends advantage, police-prose do not fault the action taken has an from the While we unreasonable, view, point providing ex we cution case at bar as protection. the reasonable- In doubtful are also concerned tra measure night- provision for cases where a warrantless arrest ness overall suggestions finding undermined of lack time Various warrants. intervening judgment inquiry dissent to the were made in the cause California, supra, Pierce, 23. See Ker United States v. (6th 1955), affirming F.Supp. Cir. S.Ct. 1623. (N.D.Ohio 1954). conviction magistrate provides of the an additional that affirmance believe of the justice. may uphold in weight the arrest. the interest of is that States, Ventresca, 380 U.S. United 102, II. Other Issues 13 L.Ed.2d may also police-prosecution The Appellant he contends A. against that protected a contention required, prejudiced, be is and reversal particular premises by trial action taken оf the because “unreasonable” because revoking invalid in bail of Dorman and court that for belief trial, reasonable basis during was no his codefendant Jones stationing premises, in if the suspect those proximity to marshals close magistrate to the normal adds remainder defendants in for the court 4 an under Rule authorization warrant the trial. designated premises to enter similar by presented A similar contention was customarily un warrant Jones, rejected co-defendant place for a named der Rule 41 search court, opinion in an written when this property.25 Wright Judge panel, by for the affirmed order of the conviction Jones. The any event, are that the we satisfied rehearing granting court en program developed in the has been requested appellee by of the order banc following District of Columbia confer- reversing Dorman’s con- of the division prosecution and the ences between the affirm- viction left untouched the order magistrates has hallmarks of reason- However, ing the of Jones. conviction evidencing ableness, as it does an aware- any possible misapprehensiоn to obviate importance ness of requirement of the warrant opinion Part III of the written satisfy and a resolve to Wright May 5, por- issued requirement, particular unless circum- dealing tion of bail with the revocation urgent tances intervene to establish stationing marshals, extent need for a warrantless arrest or search. reprinted opin- Appendix as an for this point Time reveal weaknesses ion, adopted en the court banc way supplements program. affirming conviction. Dorman’s program as it suffices to ob- stands any interjection by viate need for B. At trial Government time, g., testimony court at this e. for considera- elicited from witness Holmes appellant tion reversal of this that he lineup identified conviction had purpose prophylactic morning of a conducted the rule. after provide 25. Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal for this. While there is no strict Rules of providing logic Criminal Procedure matter be ac- it seems to issu- cepted, by implication, ance arrest warrant do least requirements obtaining per- as strict Rule 41 of an arrest warrant ma- taining supporting premises prop- warrants search terial a search erty. Thus, judges though Rule 41 is as not “unreasonable” even limited to magistrate upon passed record, and commissioners has not the need courts of e.g. mayor privacy premises. and does not for invasion include justice peace, however, arise, issue who is If should authorized to against judgment by magistrate commit for an offense would obvious- ly helpful. Compare see 18 § U.S.C. and is United States Ventresca, supra. therefore authorized to issue an arrest Similarly helpful warrant under Rule 3. could be an authoriza- Significantly, present purposes, tion, contemplated Rule like that Rule requires premises night. search warrant to enter specifically place (or person) propriety referring name the requires designation procedures guide searched. Rule aas to reason- (leaving appears to be arrested ableness arrest warrant cases subject warrants), aside the of John Doe Miller designate place but does not where he is to be Nor does arrested. Form 12 objected lyzed Appellant I think most of are.” them offense. judge by this represented counsel at then ruled: not been “* objec * * this lineup. The overruled At this time the two de- prior lineup held the had been tion since light fendants will stand in committed v. States United issuance of to the Wade, Court, of the actions known to the 1926, L. respond timely aswell their failure to During argument at (1967). Ed.2d 1149 reconvening on of the Court and the objection, the appellant’s on the bench strong case, evidence in this and in in addition that prosecutor indicated light menacing the manner photo prior lineup there had been the demonstrated the two defendants Appellant now graphic identification. government witnesses.” case urges this remand this court that day next appellant Depu- each sugges proceedings the on for further ty United States Marshal seated ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍behind photographic identifica tiveness of this table, him at counsel and the marshals v. Stovall request for a tion. No through so remained the trial. The de- Dis hearing in the was made Denno objected this, fense claiming not think trict We do Court. prejudice appellants would eyes justice require a course such interests jury, jury being led to believe here, noth where, record discloses appеllants something had done there was fact that than the more wrong, judge or that the now felt that identification, photographic and there guilty. were suggestiveness “plaus that is no issue of appeal appellants this On renew ibly circumstances” tendered argue They the revocation claim. in the record. Calvin are disclosed unjustified and that of bail was U.S.App.D. Smith United appellants placing marshals behind 92, 413 F.2d 366 C. prejudiced jury. them before Affirmed. might judge have We think the trial complete given a of his more statement APPENDIX bail; likewise, revoking he reasons for might is- Opinion of the Court Part III minimize taken measures to 5,May written Circuit sued Judge Wright, impact jury of the fact that with the concurrence custody— the defendants were now in Judge Judge Chief Leventhal, Bazelon Circuit example, there no clear seems 21,664, No. Nathaniel why stationed reason marshals had America, and Jones v. United States of right We can next to defendants. 21,736, B. Dorman v. No. Harold United envisage action of this situations where States of America.27 might type by judge to be be assumed jury example, prejudicial. For if the III good sitting part of a had been cases, liberty Appellants criminal bail month several custody of the trial. At the cases where defendants were the commencement placed judge day near the de- end told marshals were fendants, the first feeling judge, in lawyers: then if the trial in this “The defense compelling danger-wise I middle of a trial and without pretty case is intense reasons, very disposed revoked defendant’s bail commit these am much *** right him, placed a marshal next to men under the circumstances. might jury just terri- para well assume some of these witnesses was [O]ne States of America and dis- L.Ed. 21,736, sented of No. reversal 2d 1199 Harold B. States America, concurred the af- Leventhal 21,664, Nathaniel Jones firmance No. way only piece impress had been re- a trial in a information that can ble indicating dangerousness judge upon jury vealed to the dangerous trial, very impartial or men on was either search for defendant very Therefore, guilty. truth aborts. pains precipitate- should be at not to act here does However, record ly. He should bail revoke where know do not a situation. show such clearly required; that action is sitting, and jury long had been how court, should shackle the defendants gеn- it was whether do not know we marshals, with chains whether or with judge to station practice of the eral only showing on a clear that the defend- who all defendants near marshals pose ants an immediate threat trial the custody. have examined We in peace and order of the trial. judge the that find transcript we impar- fair and an otherwise conducted BAZELON, Judge (concurring Chief assume, this willWe tial trial. result). the of bail record, the revocation that agree Judge I am inclined to with illegally prej- placement the marshals of Wright, infra, nighttime the Moreover, of one defendants. udiced the apartment of exempt- Dorman’s revoking was not gave for court the the reasons ed from the fourth amendment’s at- war- defendants bail —failure requirement by Hayden, rant Warden v. provide ade- an time —does tend court 294, 387 1642, U.S. 87 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 18 quate that action. basis (1967). 782 I ques- need reach this holding, are not we In so tion, however, because I conclude teaching Supreme of the unaware any admitting in error the fruit of this U. 389 v. United in Bitter beyond search was harmless a reasonable 15 6, 16, 7, L.Ed.2d 15, 19 S.Ct. 88 S. Chapman California, doubt. 386 U.S. (1968): 824, (1967). 87 S.Ct. 17 L.Ed.2d 705 judge indisputably has robbery Almost from “A trial time of the it- orderly self, powers implicating to ensure the evidence broad (e. progress overwhelming g., trial. was expeditious the abandoned power probation purpose, papers eyewitness For this has and the identifications). the defendant remit revoke bail Just as this evidence power custody. be must pur- But reduced the need for Hat/dew-like circumspection. fleeing, It suit suspect, exercised unknown it may invoked when and to also any establishes be error here was danger justified Chapman. Harring- which extent harmless under See presents California, defendant’s conduct ton v. 395 U.S. significant danger (1969). interference L.Ed.2d progress or order of with the * *” * WRIGHT, J. SKELLY Circuit trial. (concurring part dissenting stringent equally take an view part): appearance any which creates action I concur in danger Part II A and B in a Trials should trial. opinion.1 respectfully court’s atmosphere impar- I dissent in an conducted upholds tiality; jury nighttime from Part I should be allowed weigh feeling the warrantless search of a I home. As evidence without majority they opinion, upholds read impending acquit it terror if doom search, least, to some When a extent at defendаnt. conducts Denno, 1. As issue discussed 18 L. identification B, Ed.2d Part II issue is a court notes the ar constitution one, may collaterally. rest al occurred before United States v. raised Wade, L. Kaufman v. United Ed.2d Since the Stovall issuing Blancato time. Dectective system at the theory the new almost finished had that he testified work hours after office warrants application As- typing up when the time effect better than one Attorney called sistant States it, As I constitution of this search. see us that were unable back “told rights the mal al cannot be denied judge.” testified that designed to locate a He functioning system pro of a attorney crime them that since the judgment told affirming the tect them. go felony ar- Court, could ahead I submit District rest Dorman without warrant. generally privacy the Dis of homes pro trict better of Columbia would be up a rounded Blancato then Detective under the Fourth Amendment tected proceeded to policemen number the court here official intrusion if stayed Some officers Dorman’s home. simply evidence of held that approx- apartment house and outside the guilt beyond overwhelming2 is so officеrs, plain imately most six reasonable doubt the admission clothes, of Dorman’s door went the illegal fruit of taint the search did not apartment. were the officers Two of California, Chapman the conviction. carrying shotguns. They the arrived at 22-24, 17 L. po- apartment 10:20 P.M. The at about Ed.2d 705 lice and Dorman’s door knocked men mother, apartment, four an- lived in the On December who mother, clothing District of in the in a store Dorman’s the words robbed swered. night- prosecutor, tried and con- her Appellant was in the “was Columbia. something gossamer participants gown equally at the as one of victed argues police appeal Dorman known their On the time.” The crime. police rights Dorman, purpose the he his were violated to arrest asked if not, searching night home, a at without he house was at was his were told accordingly within, the fruit into heard sound and rushed warrant and a apartment. the suit of the that search —a clothes Dorman was not mother’s, have been al- but robbed store —should a man friend his who her, apartment lowed in evidence. lived in the with was. watching apparently television, He was 6:15 robbed at about The storе was pair in a dressed of shorts. Friday evening. clerks and a Several time, thoroughly the police the store at The then customers were searched nearby. policeman apartment. policeman a a was on the One entered and emerge policeman the robbers The saw walk-in found an un- closet where he police clothing and Other chased them vain. hemmed suit from the store. summoned, including suit, policeman Detective The removed that Blancato, charge. po- belonged The who half dozen others which papers apparently policemen, found left lice some Mrs. Dorman’s Other friend. testimony contained robbers which as at one the Gasch who heard found, hearing suppression Dorman. At the name and address of “rum- maged apartment took two of the witnesses 8:00 P.M. seized about police station where witnesses other re- items which have since been photograph Finding identified Dorman from a turned” that Dor- to Dorman. perpetrators home, police the crime. one of man was not at never- stayed apartment then down and Detective Blancato “sat thеless until time, up morning, typing application passing for a started 4:00 next “smoking partner Dorman, according called the warrant” his Mrs. while Attorney cigarettes laughing.” Assistant States Mrs. Dorman Appellant copies tion, monthly pro- left he one of rob- his was identified as witnesses, report showing eye bation bers name and ad- least three his dress In addi- scene the crime. judged trying position to find and her friend discussed from their the time night to, place during entered, stay since came Dorman’s remaining. police apartment finding seemed intent on the intent arresting agree day police Further, apprehended Dorman next I him. riding police as he car. At trial that at that time evidence, Finally, into cause Government introduced arrest Dorman. I agree objection, over the suit po- defense counsel’s it was reasonable for the might lice taken from the closet. believe that Dorman question been at his then home. be- here contends The Government whether, nonetheless, police comes probable cause to police had violated the Fourth Amendment when to be- Dorman; reasonable it they entered Dorman’s home home; might at his lieve warrant. home without entrance into Supreme Both the reasonable; him to look occa made clear on numerous court have eventually that, although Dorman was that, police enter when a home sions apartment, not to be at discovered or for evidence search for a into to look for the was reasonable crime, preferred method of fruits there; hiding if he was to see closet proceeding Mr. warrant.3 is to obtain a plain suit was in since the distinguished prosecu Jackson, Justice looked once he of the officer view Justice, becoming expressed tor before validly seized the closet the suit was it well: proper scope being law- within the suspected I point felon. a “The the Fourth Amend- ful search for by agree ment, ac- grasped the Government is with which often not police officers, in this case should tions of the zealous is not that it denies Ohio, 1, 20, See, e.g., Terry 464, 420, (1932); v. 392 U.S. 52 S.Ct. 76 L.Ed. 877 ; (1968) 1868, Chappell States, U.S.App. 88 20 L.Ed.2d 889 S.Ct. v. 119 United States, 347, 356, 359-360, 935, Katz 389 356- v. United U.S. D.C. 342 F.2d 938-939 357, (1967); 507, (1965); States, L.Ed.2d 88 S.Ct. 19 576 Morrison v. 104 United Municipal City U.S.App.D.C. (1958); 352, Camara v. County Court of 262 F.2d 449 523, Francisco, States, U.S.App. 387 San U.S. v. United 85 Accarino 528-529, 1727, 394, (1949). 87 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 930 D.C. F.2d 179 456 (1967); Ventresca, United States v. 380 The concern of the courts has been ex 102, 105-106, 741, pressed forcefully. 13 U.S. 85 S.Ct. L.Ed. In McDonald v. Unit Ohio, (1965); States, 456, 2d 684 v. supra, Beck U.S. 379 ed 69 335 U.S. S. 89, 96, 223, 193, Supreme 142 85 S.Ct. 13 L.Ed.2d Ct. at Court said: “* * * (1964) ; 108, Aguilar Texas, thing; heady v. 378 U.S. Power is a 110, 1509, history police acting 84 12 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 723 shows that ; (1964) States, Preston v. United 376 U. their own cannot be And so trusted. 364, 367-368, 881, S. requires magistrate S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 84 11 the Constitution a (1964); Wong States, pass 777 Sun v. United desires of be 471, 481-482, 407, they privacy 371 U.S. 83 S.Ct. 9 L. fore violate the * * *” (1963); Chapman Ed.2d 441 v. United home. 610, States, 614-617, 365 U.S. 81 today I note a renewed concern 776, (1961); 5 figures L.Ed.2d 828 v. Jones face of which indicate that States, 257, 270, United 725, requirement 362 U.S. 80 S.Ct. Fourth Amendment warrant (1960); 4 being respected v. by police. 697 Jones is not States, 493, 498, United city U.S. 357 78 S.Ct. Thus in the San Francisco there 1253, (1958); only 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 Giordenello 19 search warrants issued 480, States, 486, v. only United 357 U.S. 78 S. 1966 and 20 Letter from 1245, (1958); Ct. 2 Graham, Report ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍ L.Ed.2d 1503 United Fred er, New York Times 48, 51, Jeffers, Taylor, States v. 342 72 U.S. S. to Professor Telford School 93, (1951); Law, Ct. 96 L.Ed. 59 v. University, McDonald Columbia December States, 451, 454-456, 20, 1968, United reporting 335 69 figures obtained 191, Trupi (1948); Harry Green, Clerk, 93 L.Ed. 153 from Chief Division States, 705, 699, Division, ano v. United 334 U.S. Criminal Francisco Munici San 1229, (1948); pal 92 L.Ed. 1663 Lefkowitz, Court. United States v. 285 U.S.

401 (1950)], said: we L.Ed. 599 support 94 enforcement law emphasize no matter who men ‘We reasonable inferences usual which gov- mission, a his protection officer or what Its from evidence. draw pri- a оfficial cannot invade ernment infer- requiring those consists magistrate (1) home, a vate unless de- by neutral and drawn a ences be (2) being to do so has him authorized magistrate instead tached per- major crisis engaged immediate judged officer neither time formance of affords enterprise competitive ferret- often * * * magis- apply opportunity right nor out crime. ” trate.’ to thrust themselves officers * ** concern, grave home is at 464. F.2d U.S.App.D.C. at society but to to the individual recognized number have since to dwell in reasonable chooses requirement times security surveil- and freedom exigent circum- must be faced right privacy When lance. cir- stances, necessitous called sometimes right reasonably yield must cumstances, can enter before is, rule, decided as a a war- home make an arrest without officer, judicial policeman or See, g., Chappell United e. rant. agent.” government enforcement 356, 360, States, U.S.App.D.C. (1965); Jackson v. States, Johnson v. United U.S.App.D.C. 302 F.2d 13-14, 367, 369, L.Ed. (1962); Morrison (Footnotes omitted.) U.S.App.D.C. 262 F.2d resulted These considerations have requirement police enter a that when some person “Exigent means house arrest a circumstances” to search thing to be cause unless “exi- than must have a warrant more gent crime require has committed imme- circumstances” their lieve a grounds Warden, Maryland entry. to believe Peni- reasonable diate Supreme tentiary Hayden, 87 within his home.4 (1967); exigent 1642, circumstances. has some S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d listed likely States, fleeing suspect or These include a McDonald v. United 335 U.S. weap evidence, 451, 456, jurisdiction, L.Ed. 153 to flee the re require- threatened ons or contraband This court stated destruction, ago long or a quite explicitly ment as moval immediate as passing States, officers, on 1949. In 85 ease “the Accarino v. United where help cry (1949), street, U.S.App.D.C. hear shot and a F.2d 456 right in the name privacy entrance we discussed the and demand States, su underlies the Fourth Amendment. We law.” McDonald v. 192; pra, 69 S.Ct. noted that a has an additional right supra, U. privacy in his home. went v. United Johnson 14-15, say: on to atS. “ * * * Maryland Warden, recently, right im- Most That additional supra, Hayden, Court poses Penitentiary requirements upon additional meaning exigent cir- expanded power In arrest. District of “hot Little, U.S.App.D.C. a situation include Columbiа v. cumstances [85 Hayden pursuit.” In affirmed came grounds, robbery; cab drivers other armed two (1925) Compare ed, in a “* * * that an article dwelling : Agnello Belief, however well found- house furnishes sought is concealed L.Ed. 145 no justifi- held unlawful cation out a warrant. questionably $ ^{[*] [*]} >t search of that showing probable notwithstanding And sucii searches place facts cause. with- un- are suspected followed robber to fruits of the scene and crime that dispose drivers notified the house. The cab robber intended to of immediate-

police police ly longer custody; radio arrived would no be his They similarly, suspect the house within five en- minutes. if the fear of robber, being caught being pur- tered the house to look for the or felt he was sued, likely there, him him. The found and arrested was not lin- he would ger prior held those at his home for four that under circum- hours fleeing. Also, get necessary. if stances a warrant was not he intended to rid any possible weapons, the time was hearing suppression At the here ample already for him to have done so. justify police Government tried to primary Hay- Thus the rationale principle as an extension pursuit exсeption den hot is absent here. Hayden.5 laid The District out agreed. Judge, reluctantly, somewhat police, waiting judi- The while He ruled: cial officer to authorize into the “* * * appears t to this Court [I] home, simply could have staked out the entry, and seizure apartment. fact, group In while the upheld this should reason- case entered, officers the ex- others did cover police authority, fol- able exercise building apartment. its to the reasoning lowing the Warden police could outside the have remained supra. Hayden, police found Once the apartment until a warrant was obtained. papers identifying defendant apartment If Dorman was in showing crime, at the scene of the it, police left could have arrested address, probable his approach him then. difference in have cause to believe that he would slight. is not Had the followed gone following robbery, and home procedure, this Mrs. Dorman her might They that he still there. might spared friend have been he was armed and that he knew shame, shock and embarrassment of unwilling to use force and violence nighttime shotgun-bearing entrance of аccomplish They had a his aims. policemen half a dozen home. into their try apprehend him as Further, the insensitive action ” * * * quickly possible. remaining group home inside However, through night might present hot case does most of the have pursuit Hayden. because, inas Here there a been This is so even avoided. delay magistrate four-hour between the and if the had decided crime entry. Hayden episode issue a the whole cause existed to warrant, might put took but reasonable a few minutes. This difference example, in time limits on its he between the two cases undercuts execution—for might application excep- pursuit of the hot have limited the of a home any daytime,6 might tion to this In to or he the four hours in its execution case. daytime, positive 5. In the District Court the Government al- unless affidavits are justify house, property so tried is in the ground consent, judge since Mrs. Dorman which case the or commissioner has police they nighttime had told the could enter. discretion authorize quite properly rejected dealing 4, Fed.R.Crim.P., Gasch this Rule search. argument: warrants, is this with arrest silent on theory disposed appeаrs subject, why “The consent can be but no reason quickly, put judge for consent be no valid can reason- or commissioner cannot police shotguns execution, found when armed with least able limits on its present police they the door of a themselves intend where the state that apartment night house or late at the arrest. enter home to effectuate they shows, entry nighttime state want to arrest As Rule 41 ” * * * daytime gravely householder’s son. en- viewed more than a try, clearly so the time execution is 41(c), Fed.R.Crim.P., judge 6. Rule or commis- directs that consideration that noted, search warrants can be in the can account. As served sioner take into was explicit warrant that the made have good only search UNITED of America STATES indefinite- to remain license it was not a ly apartment.7 in the WILSON, Appellant. John H. L. regard No. 23283. point A final should Assistant the advice of Appeals, United States Court of police Attorney States District of Columbia Circuit. judge so found could not be 22, 1970. Argued April a war arrest without make the should 20,May Decided attorney First, called rant. began typing Blancato Detective when warrant, appliсation Detec before his advice back with

called typing it. finished

tive Blancato very elapsed short. thus

The time diligent hardly that a credible

It magistrate has court This time.8

made within that magistrates are times that

noted several day. Ricks 24 hours a

available U.S.App.D.C. States, 118 n. F.2d n. U.

(1964); v. United Jones

S.App.D.C. magistrate And if the were, unavailable, somehow concedes, other over 125

the Government District autho

judicial officers

rized issue warrants. right my judgment the ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‍seeking entered before join ma- I home.

and searched so hoping do will

jority here

again a similar when confronted

situation. shall, peace speak eloquently “No Soldier in time of the facts this case house, quartered any placing limitations of reasonable * * consent of the Owner warrants. D.C. Code the execution of authorizing judges 9S1 § variety persons power 8. A wide war- Sessions to issue General issue arrest warrants. § D.C. Code subject rants, lim- is also silent on the empowers judge any of the Court of placed on execution. Simi- itations General Sessions issue warrants. appears why judges larly, no reason fact, quite explicitly statute envis- exercise discretion court cannot upon judges being ions the at unus- called place limits on the execu- reasonable important ual to exercise this func- times tion of the warrant. tion: policy “Each District Colum-

7. Broad not unlike considerations may, bia Court of General Sessions the ones raised this case Sundays any time, including when been the minds of the Framers * * legal holidays, (Emphasis Constitution, as the wrote into the added.) part Rights: Bill third

Case Details

Case Name: Harold B. Dorman v. United States

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

Date Published: Apr 15, 1970

Citation: 435 F.2d 385

Docket Number: 21736

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.