Jimmie D. Bryson v. United States

695 156, U.S.App.D.C. charge does reveal v. United of the as whole (1967); any concluding Unit that 375 F.2d 332 Thomas for basis 392, F. faulty.7 ed structions were denied, 2d cert. U.S. Affirmed. (1954); Cur 5. 98 L.Ed. 1110 Ct. ley States, U.S.App.D.C. denied, cert. 91 L.Ed. 1850 suf

We that was are satisfied from reasonable

ficient which jury Appellant conclude that could likely companions his as a saw Brown BRYSON, Appellant, Jimmie D. robbery, him to prospect for a followed house, course shot him in America, robbery attempt. Appellant’s ad of the UNITED STATES of Appellee. had that he slain mission to Valentine very likely was Nos. 21439. Brown reinforced what strong already a case. Appeals States Court of District of Columbia Circuit. Appellant’s con- also reviewed We have Argued May concerning speedy and the trial tentions allegedly instruc- erroneous trial court’s 27, 1969. Decided June former, it clear that tions. As to upon as of the date which Appellant’s convic- third reversed

tion, he had did not that Court believe deprived of his Sixth

rights.6 months he was than two less

brought District to his fourth trial challenges Appellant’s

Court. As to instructions, our review trial court’s unique may considering contention, thorities and have some the Court by own to offer reason of his contribution noted: therefore, experience. are, petitioner’s contention unusual We further speedy position affirming right a conviction denied to a he was mandatory wholly which, sen- carries a without merit trial properly Ap- beyond rejected imprisonment, of life the Court tence * * * Virtually power alter; peals. of the court at the same all petitioner significant delays complains indica- we are aware of which the pro- pur- appellate tions that some of the rehabilitative in the course of occurred ceedings may already poses imprisonment have from the and resultеd either believe, petitioner the need been achieved. must, we actions unusually duty concepts, in these there is a assure careful review of an recognize complex en- ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍such case. manifestations courage progress. 219, 221-222, such This would (footnotes parole problem (1968) if the were n. authorities 2009-2010 bring powers omitted). to bear on able to case, statutory Appellant’s limita- but the parole age upon eligibility in 1960 in the arrest at the of 18 tions From his prevent released life Fall when he was case of a sentence until last years pending appeal be that bail several to come. this court —some ju- years Appellant given eight will be outside the and one-half consideration — Appel- custody. continuously Representations process ato modification of dicial pa- court in connection with lant’s sentence which would made to this authorities, turn, opportunity application, including cor- those role bail suggest Appellant’s officials, situation; this is to review rection clemency regard prison purpose powers. gained au- executivе Burger, Judge, Circuit dissented

part. in these cases re- seeks

versal of three different but interrelated apparently the convictions. He was com- Eugene panion in crime of one Frazier appeal robbery whose conviction Payne, Washington, Mr. Kenneth E. recently before us Frazier v. court) ap- (appointed this for D. C. 21,427, appellant United States.1 In No. 21,427. pellant in No. attacks his as conviction codefendant with Frazier in for the the trial Frazier Washington, Marshall, Jaquelin Mr. A. robbery. 21,437, In No. he seeks re- ap- court) (appointed this for D. C. versal bery, conviction a different for rob- 21,437. pellant in No. acquitted. of which Frazier was Monderer, Washington, D. Howard Mr. 21,439 No. for involves a conviction car- court) appel- (appointed for C. rying dangerous weapon found on 21,439. lant in No. appellant at the time of his arrest for the robbery. latter Finkelstein, Mr. U. Joel M. Asst. S. Atty., 21,427, appellee in also for No. trials, robbery In both Frazier’s con- appellee appearance for entered an improperly fession introduced was into 21,437. No. against appellant.2 evidence The Gov- Dickstein, Atty., De Mr. H. Leonard ernment confesses error as to thеse con- Justice, partment of bar of requests victions and remand for new York, pro Appeals hac of New Court of delayed trials. for We the remands two court, vice, by special of with whom leave Initially, reasons. all three since cases Burnett, Asst. U. S. Mr. Arthur L. Atty., concerning also raise the admissi- issues Rosenberg, Beatrice and Miss bility of identification evidence under Justice, Atty., Department on of were Denno,3 held them for Stovall v. we 21,437.

brief, appellee in No. for court’s en of banc consideration the im- plications of Stovall Clemons v. United Bennett, Mr. Asst. U. S. Robert S. addition, States.4 In in all three cases Garfiel, Atty., Miss Carol with whom appellant challenges admissibility of Atty., time Asst. at the the brief U. S. evidence claimed to be tainted fruit of brief, filed, appellee for was on the confession, allegedly Frazier’s which was 21,439. in No. obtained in of Miranda Ari- violation Bress, Atty., at U. Messrs. David G. S. appeared that zona.5 Since it thus filed, Frank were time briefs admissibility appel- Q. Nebeker, Atty., at the Asst. U. S. lant on whether Frazier’s turn filed, on the were were the briefs tree,” “poisonous we confession was a 21,427, 21,437 appellee for in Nos. briefs originally the results decided to await 21,439. issue we the Miranda remand on However, a ordered in recent BAZELON, Judge, . Frazier. Chief Before clearly ROBINSON, establish- Circuit Court decision BURGER Judges. any past notwithstanding indica- es that contrary, appellant tions PER CURIAM:* any complain violation * prepared opinions to June These were U.S.App.D.C. 284, 342 119 pursuant issued and are 1969 (1964). 863 F.2d judgment entered June of this Court 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 87 21, 1969. U.S.App.D.C. -, 1. 136 408 F.2d 1230 (March 14, 1969). 1968) (en (decided banc). December U.S.App. 5. 384 U.S. L.Ed. Kramer (1963) ; F.2d 114 2d D.C. Jones improper confrontation, rights.6 Ac- cellblock estab- Fifth Amendment

Frazier’s cordingly, independent ripе lished for his in- cases now source these are The record court identification.9 decision. Simpson confused whether also I. No. prior photographic made a Resolving favor Frazier. doubt in concedes, As the Government Frazier, rested our conviction must be reversed because of finding Simpson’s source identifica- the erroneous admission into evidence ground, tion on another which is not against appellant of codefendant’s support available to his identification confession. The Government has also apрellant Bryson.10 Thus, Fra- under suggested since the circumstances zier, the crucial tri- new surrounding eyewitness out-of-court Simpson al will be whether Reznick and identifications unclear photographic made reliable identifica- record, appellant per from the should be appellant prior improper tions of to the challenge at mitted new trial to these cell-block confrontations. record identifications, witnesses’ in-court even Bryson some leaves doubt as whether though originally reject the court below photographs. еver identified from challenge. accept sug ed such a We gestion. However, in Frazier v. United argues also States, supra, upheld we eyewitness admission identifications were obtained appellant’s in-court solely identifications of co- by exploitation of information defendant Frazier made the same wit learned from Frazier’s confession. nesses, permits holding and this us to confession in Frazier’s was obtained vio narrow the inquiry open field of left Miranda, says lation of identifica the case at bar. tions were therefore tainted fruits. However, they if even are fruits witnesses, Since Reznick poisonous tree, appellant is not entitled Simpson, identified trial before to have them from excluded ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍single-suspect at the same con cellblock against him. frontation we found due offensive to States,11 Long held we process Frazier, question is wheth standing that a defendant had to chal- er their in-court an identifications had lenge fruits of a violation another independent question, source.7 On this party’s rights. Fifth This Amendment Simp Frazier indicates that Reznick and long- conclusion was in accord with the goоd opportunity son had a to observe standing privilege rule that a testimonial at assailants the time of off may only by be claimed holder of the They gave reasonably ense.8 accurate privilege.12 The has same rule also been description shortly of both robbers there applied to Fourth viola- Amendment circumstances, after. In these held tions.13 photographic Reznick’s identifica Frazier, opinions tion of Some recent made absence appeared prejudicial long portend had suggestivity from a retreat 18, 829, 14, States, 165, 6. 11. 124 360 F.2d Alderman v. 394 U.S. (1966). 961, (1969). 89 S.Ct. 22 L.Ed.2d 176 Wigmore, 2196, 12. 8 Evidence §§ supra States, 1, 7. Frazier v. United note (Rev’d 1961) ; ed. Bowman v. United 1170; supra p. States, Clemons v. United 913, (9 Cir. 350 F.2d 915-916 4, F.2d, p. at note 1965), denied, cert. 383 U.S. 86 S.Ct. supra 8. Frazier v. United note ; (1966) Sachs p. 1170. Zone, Government the Canal denied, (5 Cir.), Id. cert. 94 L.Ed. 525 p. 10. Id. a face-to-face confronta- —. Wong shortly Sun v. United tion Frazier un- after equivocally Simpson 9 D.Ed.2d as the man identified 491 — he had robbed. rule, standing clear.18 dissent least in Fourth Amendment His on the would in other constitu- allow a broader cases and extension vicarious portents rights But assertion of Fourth tional cases well.14 these nipрed in the bud Alderman v. because Fourth Amendment exclu- were sionary There, primarily rule held to en- United States.15 the Court serves property prohibition force those own blanket un- whose privacy ex- reasonable invaded obtain searches and seizures has been for the general illegal wiretap- public.19 benefit of clusion of the fruits But he “only ping.16 person concedes that said: whose right * * * pro- has been violated can claim general We adhere * * * tection of privilege [the] rights rule that Fourth Amendment [against Indeed, self-incrimination].” pеrsonal rights which, like some only jurisdiction broadly which rights, may other constitutional be * approved * * standing vicarious in Fourth vicariously asserted. Amendment cases denies such appear petitioners to assert is What complain of Fifth Amendment viola- right constitutional tions.21 pro- their own to exclude relevant Accordingly, light Alderman, bative evidence because was seized illegally even obtained, another in violation of Frazier’s confession was thereby Fourth Amendment. think its But we would not fruits against appellant. there is rendered a substantial difference for inadmissible purposes pre- constitutional between ,437 II. No. 21 venting the incrimination of a defend- through illegally very ant the evidence robbery This conviction rests Fra- suppressing seized from him evi- and pre-trial implicating zier’s ap- confession party dence on the motion of who pellant a and on an in-court identification predicate cannot claim this exclu- by the victim. Since Government sion.17 confesses error in the admission of the confession, only question is whether rights are,

Fifth a Amendment the identification would be admissible at fortiori, personal rights, opinion as a new trial.22 in Mr. Justice Fortas Alderman makes compact, constitutional ob- tbe 14. Simmons v. United servance of which is essential to the wel- 19 L.Ed.2d n. 12 1247 persons. Accordingly, fare of all (1968) ; Berger com- York, v. New urged necessary mentators have 41, 55, 87 S.Ct. implication of the Fourth (1967) ; is Hoffa v. United illegally defendant whom 18 L.Ed. acquired offered, evidence is whether or (1967). 2d See also Ellis and Wat not was obtained in violation of his v. kins United right privacy, have the (decided April 30, excluded. 1969), p. 798, n. 11. Id., S.Ct., (opinion Fortas, at 981 Supra 15. 6. note J., dissenting part). in person 16. a Under Alderman Id. аt 983. object illegally to evidence obtained only wiretapping if he was himself over- People Varnum, 21. See 66 Cal.2d heard or the overheard conversation Cal.Rptr. 108, 427 P.2d 772 place property. took on his 89 S.Ct. 961. People Martin, Cf. 45 Cal.2d Id., P.2d 855 89 S.Ct. at 966-967. Id., 89 S.Ct. 961. holding appellant 22. Our cannot ob- Amendment, ject 19. The Fourth unlike fruits violation Fifth, guarantee rights is couched in terms of a Frazier’s Fifth Amendment dis- engage poses the Government in will not of the contention that the identifica- unreasonable searches and seizures. tion is an inadmissible of Frazier’s fruit general prohibition, part a fundamental confession. trial, witness, arrest, upon request Mrs. but he Bеfore shall single-sus Fine, appellant show at a the warrant to the defendant as identified again possible. pect soon confrontation and officer does cellblock not under un have the warrant in Sessions his Court General if these at the time of he shall then certain circumstances. Even process, how violated due confrontations inform defendant of offense charged ever, Fine’s that a war- that Mrs. we are satisfied fact independ (Emphasis rant has been had an issued. add- in-court identification ed.) robbery occurred ent sourсe. The minutes, daylight took several broad hearing suppress At a on motion to his during with face which she stood face-to gun cause, ap- probable for lack of afterwards, Immediately the robber. pellant testified that officers ac- photographs of five showed her carry-out shop costed him in a where men, including appellant, not and she drinking out, he was coffee. One called identify could none of Subse them. “Hey, Then, boy, put your up.” hands quently, police testified that officer communication, without further offi- Negro pictures of hеr showed five more grabbed him, him, cers searched unhesitatingly males, from which she carrying gun. Ap- him with According appellant’s photo. selected pellant anything did not in their see through recollection, looked her she own hands at the time. them- The officers spotting photos half a book of appellant, testify, selves did not the motion to identified and then later suppress denied photo recol in other books. Whichever citing pursuant was made to a warrant correct, does this lection not robbery. for armed pass photographic the due validity which was process test Simmons v. 21,- based on Frazier’s confession No. States,23 it also circumstances but appeal. ap- contested on But for her establishes an source pellant says now his uncontroverted tes- in-court identification. timony establishes that the officers did not inform him of the warrant and III. No. robbery charge at the time required by 4(c) Rule dangerous weapon convic In the tion, no error. admits to Government Rule, purpose, meaning The its and its ap The we need consider is issue are all best known to the draftsmen. Its pellаnt’s gun found claim application to a case such as has not him the of his should have at arrest previously argued court, been in this arresting offi excluded because appellant neither nor the trial court allegedly comply cers did not with Fed.R. thought of purpose it below.25 Its (3).24 provides 4(c) Crim.P. ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍That rule by Advisory veiled Committee’s la- pertinent part of arrest that in cases explanatory conic guards comment that it “safe- pursuant ato rights” the defendant’s where the officer [t]he need not have war- arresting possession officers are nоt in rant in time of at the they of the executing. warrant Supra dissipated by note 14. The test is whether “the not the time it reached the photographic procedure gun, however, appellant was has no impermissibly suggestive complain so as to it. Alderman v. very rise to a ir- supra substantial likelihood of note 6. reparable misidentification.” 25. When defense counsel made his motion at 88 S.Ct. at 971. suppress, apparently he did not know Appellant lengthy a seeks to construct pursuant the arrest had been made leading trial of taint from Frazier’s con- a wаrrant. He had learned of the war- gun fession rant, to the on him by found however, hearing the time of the time of his arrest. if Even the taint was on his motion. by privilege mystery the Rule’s osten- an arrestee’s enhanced self-in- po- not, negative implication however, crimination. that if the did sible them, they do with incriminate himself. lice have a warrant or of- need not it to the defendant show Finally, might the Rule be de fer ing other concern- him information signed prevent unexplained arrests, grounds he of the arrest unless insuring against possibility thus asks. suspect will, ignorance, a out of resist case, the record the instant does so, a lawful If arrest. the Rule must be police affirmatively establish that police read to to announce posses- did not have the warrant their authority making an arrest. sion. Nor does it that the show required Unlike 18 U.S.C. which commands § provide did not information executing officers a search warrant immediately subsequent to the arrest. authority purpose announce their Thus, appellant press did not and be refused admittance before break below, claim doubt substantial ing private language home,26 into a as to how or whether the Rule was vio- expressly require of the Rule does not inappropriate lated. We think it on such Moreover, announcement.27 attempt a record to to sort out the Rule’s protects statute the substantial interests ambiguities or to decide whether and privacy physical integrity of the might when it be enforced an exclu- home, which are not threatened sionary Accordingly, rule. we confine unexplained arrests. Yet the statu even inquiry our possible tory requirements exception admit of an prejudice rights appel- tо substantial exigent circumstances;28 and in the might lant which the Rule have been de- police may instant case the well have had signed protect. grounds appel reasonable to fear that lant, robbery, who was wanted for armed provision The information of the Rule so, thy armed. could him search purposes. serve three different weapon for a incident to his arrest with First, might prevent any uhexplained complying (3), 4(c) out first with Rule lawfully detention of a arrested defend- ordinarily envisages even the Rule upon discovery gun, ant. Since prior warning.29 afty event, appellant promptly officers unlikely to, fact, and did not in resist carrying dangerous weapon, with which was made five injury. Second, by suffered no such forming officers. Absent need for charges him a broad of the warrant and against him, might safeguard exclusionary 4(c) Rule rule to enforce Rule open any States, 26. The officer break outer 28. See Sabbath v. United 391 U.S. house, 1755, or inner door or window of a or 88 S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d 828 any part house, anything therein, (1968) ; California, or n. 8 Ker v. 374 U.S. if, 23, 39-40, 1623, to execute a search warrant after S.Ct. L.Ed. 726 authority purpose, (1963) (opinion Clark, J.) ; 47, notice of his ishe. of id. at necessary (opinion Brennan, refused admittance or when to 83 S.Ct. at of person aiding ; J.) States, liberate himself or a him in v. Gilbert United 923, (9 1966), denied, the execution of the warrant. 931-932 Cir. cert. See also v. Masiello United 388 U.S. 87 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed U.S.App.D.C. 32, (1962) ; 304 F.2d 399 Hair v. United Maryland Warden, Penitentiary 29. Cf. v. 289 F.2d 894 Hayden, 298-300, 87 S.Ct. says only arresting Terry (1967) ; The Rule that if the v. 18 L.Ed.2d 782 Ohio, 1, 27-30, in officer is not of the war- 392 U.S. rant, required (1968) ; “he shall then” the id. at 88 S. (Emphasis added.) (opinion Harlan, J.). formation. Whether Ct. at 1886 “then” means “at time” or “subse- that quently” nothing all, in at does not make the information terms condition precedent to a valid arrest. open for unclear as (3) question we leave a case the search. The record is —a facts, and, accordingly, presents can find to properly it —we all the relevant which necessary court his conviction. a remand would be if the reverse reason to of Rule were to conclude that a violation 21,427: Reversed. No. 4(c) (3) required I in exclusion. concur 21,437: Reversed. No. majority’s opinion the which affirms 21,439: Affirmed. No. because, majority without remand as the implicitly recognizes, Rule a violation Judge (concurring BURGER, Circuit 4(c) (3) the fruits does not that dissenting part): part in suppressed. In an incidental search be accept concession I the Government’s given addition the ma- to the reasons 21,437 21,427 and numbered cases jority, there considera- are several other authority solely of Bruton on the persuade the tions which me to delimit 123, 88 S.Ct. impact of the Rule. 1620, (1968). It states no to more than the obvious 21,427 part of the In I in that concur recall that on numerous occasions the Su- opinion holding Appellant is with- that preme emphasized that the standing object out to claimed prohibits only Fourth “un- Amendment arising out Fifth violations reasonable” searches and reasonable- I of Frazier’s confession.1 dissent ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍by relating scope ness is determined portion majority opinion underlying of the search to the facts and permits Appellant re-open the which surrounding all circumstances. on remand. As issue analyzing the instant case determine majority concedes, “Reznick witnesses reasonable, whether the search was good Simpson opportunity had a duty have a to balance the for the need observe assailants at time of the, degree search of intrusion reasonably They gave a accu- offense. Terry which the search entails. See shortly description rate of both robbers Ohio, 20 L.Ed. thereafter.” Since the witnesses had passim (1968). 2d 889 This calls observe, prior adequate opportunity scrutiny careful facts of this case plainly there was source merely and not a consideration of the ab- for the in-court identifications. stract of. whether failure this same I the ma- basis that concur in offer the information in Rule outlined jority holding 21,437 number 4(c) (3) supporting vitiates witness who made in-court identifica- the search. permit- tion in the District Court is to be testify ted to the new trial without weighing significance of Rule necessity pre-trial hearing. for a 4(c) (3) it should first be noted speaks solely Rule timing about In number issue before communication information —the rele alleged the court is whether an failure point alleged vant being here failure to inform of the of- Bryson to inform fense and that an out- charge thereby resulting and the warrant thereby arrest violat- learning ing first 4(c) (3), information Fed.R.Crim.P. invalidates upon accompanying arrest preliminary arrest but at search so as his hear suppression to ing, the fruits day Quite of clearly, a later.2 this My prior views as to Frazier’s confessions are search, formation to arrest and support set is no out Frazier v. United whatsoever for this in the -, -, merely provides statute. 419 F.2d The Rule that (1969) (dissenting opinion). during sometime the arrestee be charge told of the and the warrant: Although argument at oral there was The warrant shall be executed * * * some discussion which that indicated Rule arrest of the defendant. 4(c) (3) required giving of the officer does not have the warrant (3) 4(c) is There is no indicatiоn that purely of arrest? technical violation Bryson’s Bryson grounds inquiry made or that such unrelated to the police thus, therefore, cooperate; and, not to it is is refused the Court arrest probable on more that questionable restraint than not faced with a fully liberty aware of the authori- of the arrest. officer’s ty making purpose, thereby the an- Although obviously desirable it is gesture. a nouncement useless Miller v. promptly persons be informed arrested 301, 310, U.S. S. detention, of reasons for. (1958), Ct. teaches L.Ed.2d 1332 significance being informed at of always the law nоt demand does nor of neither arrest is boundless compliance literal it constitutes when arguing Appellant’s counsel invariable. ritualistic formalism. the val- Whatever urges analogy from 18 U.S.C. § prompt ue in a statement basis for requirement of 4 announcement arrest, surely an it be said to of cannot be encourage (c) (3) ar was intended to significance such crucial on this record as person re rested to submit without police to render conduct unreason- is he will do sistance which it assumed assessing police able. conduct we grounds reаdily more if the are stated. ought mechanically; not use rules policy to be is not factor While this a rule of reason must control. ignored, totally is the assumed basis Moreover, large underlying a necessarily Ap factor not truth.4 a universal (c) (3) protection must pellant include of has conceded that the announce officers; law enforcement provisions as the to Su- ment little relevance have preme out, recently pointed particular Moreover, case.5 occupational 4(c) hazards substantial and C. to is not instructive as § safety policemen is (3); specifies essential the former announcement society: purpose forcing entry7 whereas 4(c) (3) specifies neither that announce * * * We are now concerned with prior ment be it made to arrest nor does the more immediate interest permit prop private the destruction of taking steps officer in to assure erty. person himself that the with whom he dealing likely Is weapon it is that the refuse would with a armed inquiry to answer an the cause unexpectedly fatally that could his at the time judicial specula- rect. Hence the random appellate then inform the shall defendant predi- tion at levels where the the offense and of the fact that gauntlet have cates not run the of chal- (Emphasis lenge a warrant issued. encompassed has been and cross examination added.) adversary process in the are often lack- ing validity. may open any 3. The officer break or outer house, inner door of a attempt or window or escape endanger 5. “No or part anything house, therein, anyone made, or nor could one have reasonably execute a search notice anticipated after under authority purpose, re- he is circumstances the show force necessary fused police.” Appellant’s admittance when Reply Brief at person aiding liberate himself or him in (Emphasis the execution of the warrant. supra. 6. See footnote 3 added.) speculate, example, 4. One can with abundant factual 7. For under section no doors predicates records, may absolutely of case thousands be broken unless just necessary that a so, man who committed to do see Miller v. United grave homicide or other crime well forcibly resist arrest if he is told that (1958), 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 n. 10 whereas basis, 4(c) (3) specify whereas he submit well Rule does not quietly permit if the stated reason is rear announcement nor does it the de- lights functioning— property car are struction under circum- and both violations well cor- be stances. Certainly relatively interest; would him. minor such a blunt used police discourage instrument is not needed unreasonable be unnecessary risks take conduct which officers have little interest ** maintaining. criminals have *. American violence, long of armed tradition country many every year law in this killed in enforcement officers are duty, more are

line of and thousands Virtually deaths all these

wounded. portion the in-

and a substantial

juries guns and are inflicted with Terry Ohio, at 23- 392 U.S. knives. v. LUCY WEBB HAYES NATIONAL omitted). (footnote at 1881 S.Ct. TRAINING SCHOOL FOR DEACON- pointed omitted footnote out [The MISSIONARIES, etc., Ap- ESSES AND officers 55 of the 57 enforcement law pellant, gunshot killed in 1966 died from v. wounds.] PEROTTI, Hilda J. Administratrix Estate of Perotti, William L. The the of- arrest warrant on which Deceased, Appellee. charged Bryson ficers acted in this case No. 21902. high robbery; therefore, with armed degree safety of concern for was in order United Appeals States Court of precaution fully justified.8 and their District of Columbia Circuit. gun Bryson’s A was found in belt. Argued Feb. Supreme frequently Court has pointed July 10, Decided justification out a second for con- ducting arrest— a search incident to an prevent of evidence the destruction e.g., See, Preston

the crime. 84 S.Ct. instant In the

11 L.Ed.2d 777

case, course, valid concern was gun several had used

since

the robberies.

Finally has often “major

emphasized thrust [of exclusionary one” a deterrent rule]

Terry Ohio, 392 U.S. at 889; the reason 20 L.Ed.2d primary purpose

rule dissolves when

cannot reasons have been be served. No

suggested motive to indicate a announcement, 4(c) (3) avoid case, ‍​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍example, in the failure warnings required as set Arizona,

forth in Miranda v. sum, it seems to me that

exclude the evidence here would be

extraordinarily way to advance a crude 21,736 (D.C.Cir. May 5, 1969) (Lev- Nos. & See Jones & Dorman enthal, J., dissenting).

Case Details

Case Name: Jimmie D. Bryson v. United States

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

Date Published: Jun 27, 1969

Citation: 419 F.2d 695

Docket Number: 21427, 21437, 21439

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.