*1 vague “violations,” undefined of lacking in standards. WASHINGTON, Howard Donald S. Appellant, upon colleagues ultimately my sufficiency v.
reflection enough, for position their clear of seems America, UNITED of STATES Appellee. observe: No. 21105. course, say that not, “This is prove retal- the tenant can even if Appeals United States iatory purpose re- is entitled she District of Columbia Circuit. perpetuity.” possession main Argued Jan. added.) (Emphasis May Decided not, say; not all as “Of course” read, now, may add. until the law has colleagues
My continue: dissipated, illegal purpose
“If this is can,
the landlord absence
legislation binding contract, evict or a
his tenants rents or raise legitimate reasons, economic or other
or reason at all.” even according so, may
And be seen majority, mind the we need never Congress, President the aid of which the may disregard, even
would invoke. We standing. reject, long our of such law simply jury We will leave it to a regain possession landlord although property, of his own “the de- colleagues easy,” my termination is
concede.7 colleagues
I leave where
placed themselves. operate quit
was to as a notice to The landlord is still without days’ statutory quit property notice to of his which should have been expressly Repeatedly remodeling sale, there- waived. to him for available or or pay- might after tenant default even the structure ment of rental. As of October its razed. Unless condition could authority, neither the nor her coun- its condemnation lawful appeared option sel Landlord-Tenant should have been as to future property. of General Branch of the Court Sessions. use of the reopen judg- later motion to a default A It difficult for me to understand how granted, two-day depri- fol- ment was trial this court can sustain so studied a lowed, and a directed verdict for the has vation as here occurred. landlord was entered. stay judg- court was asked And in riot-torn results Wash- ington prospect painfully ment after District of Columbia so obvious the Appeals being opened up may Court of then dissented from this court’s order for refused do so. now hor- seem indeed, rendous whether “violations” reasons set forth Edwards committed tenants them- Habib, U.S.App.D.C. 49, 51, others conduct selves whose cre- to which I now refer. ated conditions with which the landlord meanwhile, cope. accept premise time and fur- In ther defaults I cannot resulting Congress remotely occurred even entertained any my colleagues harassment and to the landlord “intent” vexation so confidently proclaim. court often overlooked. *2 whereupon
something group of the to one approached. the officers appellant walk commenced to The away. him. walked after The officers steps and hasten his then As he so did the officers. crossed run, he an enve- a discarded street at lope capsules were from which a few spilled of- the street. One onto up capsules, picked identified ficer George Davis, Washington, Mr. C. usually in the of the found them as Conner, C., D. Mr. John D. with and of narcotics violators Washington, (both appointed D. C. “Stop him— officer called to the other court) brief, appel- on for this was got stuff,” I’ve words to lant. appellant The was then effect. Strazzella, A. Mr. Asst. U. S. James Judge arrest, under as the District Atty., Messrs. David G. with whom found. Bress, Q. Atty., Frank Nebeker U. S. Dorsey it In v. United States1 Attys., Seymour Glanzer, and Asst. U. S. illegal been had an contended brief, appellee. were on the had seized search where narcotics by been squad officers who were Burger and Leven- two narcotics Before Danaher, patrol- Judges. engaged preventative in similar Circuit thal, ling mission. We observed: DANAHER, Judge: policemen any purpose “If are to serve detecting preventing of being crime and of the narcotics Convicted of violations all, laws, appellant the streets at contends that denying must challenging able to take a closer look at mo- District erred they en suppress as situations tion to the use evidence All here capsules counter them. we hold him of some 15 contain- situations, ing argues this was one of those heroin. He response police that the to it an discarded pro justifiable capsules, apprehension one which did acted responsibil ject which, impending law-enforcement an arrest' beyond permissible police up moment, ities constitutional least to that 2 limits.” lacked cause. States,3 Earlier v. United Green Before Court was the District evidence P.M., we course July 11, remarked that officers that on 1966 about 3:30 investigation may questions police officers, ask specially two trained and making experienced an arrest. the cir- Under of narcot- disclosed, violators, cumstances there we concluded ics in old were dressed clothes. investigative duty, they officers entitled narcotics ob- While on to ask a known if still appellant addict he were served the who was known using so, and, mingling narcotics make an them narcotics as addict talking yet effort to induce him to inform them known narcotics other supply. by to the sources of his of two One users in an area much responded under maintaining men police observation to the people. such While flight. His call but the other took surveillance, one of the officers saw the precipitous observed, action, pass consti- money we from receive U.S.App.D.C. 23, U.S.App.D.C. 355, F.2d cert, 594, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 2. Id. at F.2d at 931. ics and saw receive be taken one more circumstance
tuted
money
something
pass
from and
to one
followed
who
account
the officer
into
group.
that,
cir-
all
him.
It was then concluded
considered,
trained, ex-
cumstances
perienced
necessary
do not think
to decide
acted rea-
narcotics officers
question here,
proper
I think it
appel-
sonably
toward
moved
express
some
on extension of the
lant. We observed:
Dorsey
approach in
*3
talk.
“He could have declined
approach
I
endorsed
The of-
have refused to halt.
could
concurring opinion
Bailey
certainly
have had
would
ficers
right whatever,
situation
with-
us.
more,
him or
either to seize
approach
is sound when officers
him.”4
search
investigate
want to
a situation where the
say
us
that
would have
suspicious
circumstances are
but
give
unlawfully compelled
evi-
he was
going
care
don’t know what’s
on. But
he discarded
himself when
dence
per-
taken
lest the band of
he
he knew
the contraband for
missible
be stretched to
possessed
feared that
serve as rationalization to
what
he
were
would be discovered
purpose
stop
is in fact a
under arrest.5
criminality.
searching
for evidence
There had
There
no arrest.
had been
Similarly
I am uncomfortable with
Washington himself
been no search.
explanation
running
policeman
af-
that a
threw down the
passing
ter a man whom he has seen
thus
After
evidence had
narcotics.
items in
circumstances described
light,
as-
the District Court
come to
launching
here is
search
suredly
a conclusion
was free to reach
merely
voluntary
opening the door to a
respecting the conduct
of reasonableness
dialogue.
ensuing arrest was
officers. The
say
purporting
I
how
Without
not unlawful.
decide,
would
I think it fair to
We find no error.6
problem
ques-
I at least have a
Affirmed.
probable
tion, and with whether
cause
chase
for the arrest after such a
LEVENTHAL,
Judge (con-
dropped
can
include
that was
material
curring) :
during
As
the chase.
I
concur in the result because
think
obliged
I do not feel
consider the
the officer had
cause for
possible
question here, and think it
appellant,
an arrest
saw
Supreme
guidance
have
addict, talking
he knew to
abe narcotics
question
for us before the
arises
to other known narcotics
in an
ground
concur in the result
area known to be
narcot-
already
stated.
24,
Id. at