State v. Zamora, 469 P.2d 752

State v. Zamora

469 P.2d 752

Idaho

1970

Check Treatment

*1 authorized the service render failure to commodity. It to that respect shipper requested that no

well be by the shipped commodity be

particular and thus years past three during the

carrier failure no intentional be would

yet construction the I.P.U.C. limited. permit would be

statute the trans- in this case that

should be noted appeared,

feror, bankruptcy, the trustee in commodi- a list of

testified and furnished requested freight bills as

ties and the did not If the commission commission. evidence

think that this was sufficient authenticated, it should properly

was not hearing used its sub-

have continued the documents and

poena power produce having

records and witnesses attendance of Avery bankrupt

knowledge thereof from op-

Trucking given appellant orCo. decision

portunity I feel that the do so. Utilities Commission Idaho Public

should be reversed with instructions hearing

commission to a further production of the documents which necessary give feels are

commission and to appellant opportunity rebut

evidence if it so desires.

469 P.2d 752 Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,

STATE of Zamora,

Felipe ZAMORA and Richardo Defendants-Appellants.

No. 10404.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

May 27, 1970. *2 possession.

narcotics booking While the the interior of the taking Zamora automobile was searched. No warrant the search obtained, the Zamoras were present not at the search and their consent given. not been Therein were found Boise, sacks, Walters, paper two Derr, for defend- Derr & one of which contained grams ants-appellants. marijuana additional 10 of only the other of which contained a trace Gen., Robson, Atty. Howard Robert M. marijuana. of clearly One sack was not Atty. Gen., Boise, Manly, F. Asst. C. Robert visible from outside the car since it was Yost, Caldwell, Attorney, plain- Pros. hidden top glove on of compartment tiff-respondent. within the During booking dashboard. procedure the pockets contents of Garza’s SHEPARD, Justice. subsequently were taken and analyzed. The appeal by the brothers is an case pocket lint, fuzz, residue was found to be conviction judgment of Zamora from a straw and marijuana. a trace of At trial Felipe possession narcotics. unlawful can, paper tobacco sacks and two tried be- jointly Zamora were Ricardo pockets residue from the of Garza charged and jury, guilty as found fore all admitted into evidence over defendant’s by to an indeter- judge the trial sentenced objections. below, For the reasons set out years. ten minate sentence exceed opinion is our the admission of the They appealed judgment from that as- sacks and can tobacco Garza correct. signing certain error in the admission of appear trial, did not the residue from allegedly as a result of evidence obtained pockets containing marijuana a trace of search and seizure. unconstitutional was not shown charge to be material to the judgment of affirm the conviction. We possession of narcotics the Zamoras present requires ju- state of law and therefore the admission evi- reasonableness dicial examination into the error, dence was but harmless error facts of the search which turns requiring reversal. case. and circumstances of each individual required consider the We therefore point initially prior We out surrounding totality of the circumstances officers the law enforcement evidence, produced the search which had recovered the can thrown from tobacco complained admission of which is grams the car of mari which contained 17 bar. juana. had knowl The officers therefore edge possession that the defendants were early evening on In the June transporting of and narcotics in the auto apprehended the Zamoras were and arrest- appre immediately prior mobile their high speed ed following chase of Richardo brings hension arrest. believe We during Felipe Zamora’s substantially the facts in at bar the case throwing Zamora was a tobacco observed within the set out in rule of law cases can and other items from automobile. plain sight the fruits the crime were The Zamora vehicle was overtaken within the automobile and a warrantless stopped and the men into cus- three taken justified. search was therefore Harris See immediately tody. The retraced officers v. United items, among the course of travel other 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 can, recovered the tobacco which contained grams marijuana. Appellants at bar contend that the case An officer the Zamora Preston v. drove vehicle controlled the decision of Canyon County sheriff’s office where United opinion in- booked for 11 L.Ed.2d That Zamoras Garza were Furthermore, en- conducted. the search was law validated warrantless substantially contemporaneous the- defendant’s automo- forcement circumstances, Under the- Preston, sitting in his automo- arrest. these while bile. bile, vagrancy. conviction must be affirmed and the war charge was arrested on *3 defendant, Thereafter, held rantless search of defendant’s vehicle in the absence of the as did in similar- conducted of the courts a warrantless search was constitutional following factual in the cases: situations and items were found jo a part in v. 414 F.2d thereon in resulted Moreno-Valle United trunk which lodged People Jones, 901 charge being (5th 1969); Cir. different criminal v. People against (1967); said items were Ill.2d 231 N.E.2d 580 the defendant and Nugara, In trial. v. 39 Ill.2d 236 N.E.2d admitted into evidence Brown, People Ill.2d (1968); that there was v. Preston no claim was made Hock, State v. (1967); the reason which 231 N.E.2d 577 nexus between and the reason 257 A.2d 699 the defendant was arrested N.J. Dento, F.2d Cir. (3rd States v. the search of the automobile. 1967). however, stated, Preston: Court in Appellants Cooper is not contend dictates, course, “Common sense They suggest applicable the case at bar. questions of motor- searches involving Cooper in that the warrantless search was. readily things cars can- or other moved inextricably justified with and interwoven questions treated as not be identical to statute allows the California which arising out of fixed struc- of searches impounding of a motor vehicle used reason, tures like houses. For this what rea- transport narcotics and therefore may anbe unreasonable search of a house only ap- Cooper son that the rationale is may be reasonable the case motor- plicable an automobile involving in cases car.” We impounding statute such California. Cooper Court v. unduly re- an artificial and believe (1967), L.Ed.2d 730 reading Cooper. The same strictive language reiterated certain Preston from rejected in made and contention has been stating: Moreno-Vallejo v. following cases: People Jones, su- supra; v. that United made it clear in Preston “We supra; People v. pra; People Nugara, v. whether search and seizure unrea- Hock, Brown, supra; and supra; meaning the Fourth State sonable within the Further, Dentó, supra. depends Amendment the facts United States holding on pointed Cooper based circumstances of each case and the Court its out, could not particular, rule and that searches of cars the federal constitutional constantly that are may movable make since it on the California statute have based search of a car a rea- without a warrant held that in fact the California courts although one the result sonable a search. See does not authorize the statute home, opposite be the in a search of 112; Minnesota L. L.Rev. Harvard store, piece property.” or other fixed 533; University of Illinois Law Rev. Supreme Cooper the United States Forum 401. distinguished Court the set of facts in recognize Cir- that the United States We from Preston and found the warrant- Tenth Circuit Court cuit Court for the Cooper less reasonable and there- Crouse, F.2d Appeals in Wood v. fore constitutional. agree does not (10th 1969), Cir. However, be- the result herein. we hold that controls result enunciated We previously cited from other Cooper, this the defendants cases case. Like lieve charges closely related and other herein held on Circuit Courts State opinions. are the better reasoned to the reason for the search Courts “Thus, Dentó, United States v. in the ambiance which marked supra, stated the matter as follows: defendant’s car the justified in taking reason- the facts us Preston “Under before safety precautions, necessitating able States, supra, control does not highway, cars from removal are satisfied that the search be we seeing to it that precautions those fore us was reasonable. There two should invalidate search otherwise departure separating points basic Therefore, incidental and reasonable. First, appeal. decision Preston since there was no violation of defend- unlike Preston the instant search rights, ant’s constitutional the evidence substantially contemporaneous with the Jersey the New Police State pro (the arrest entire arrest and search *4 properly at was introduced trial.” completed twenty cedure was within particularly We note herein that we Secondly, a

minutes). there was rea not informed nor does the disclose record sonable nexus the offense the between charge for which defendants herein and defendant was arrested for initially were arrested when their car was automobile, as in search of his stopped by law enforcement officers. entirely Preston the search unrelated was reveal, however, The record does that when charge vagrancy. the arrest taken the defendants to the sheriff’s distinguishing In do Preston we not over posses- office there booked for Supreme look the statement made sion of narcotics. Court is accused ‘[o]nce arrest and in custody, then a search re point further out that the We warrant, place, made at another a without California, cent case of v. 395 U.S. Chimel simply not incident to the arrest.’ 376 752, 2034, (1969), 89 23 685 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 367, U.S. at 84 at 364 881 S.Ct. a enunciates somewhat new and different However, no situations are identical and incident standard for seaches warrantless judicial a reason examination into the However, an arrest. Chimel involved a depends great ableness of a deal petitioner therein search of home of upon and the facts circumstances of the are clear that a different and cases individual Cf. case. States ex. prevails standard the warrantless regarding Murphy Jersey, rel. v. State 260 of New vehicle and Chimel of motor aff’d, F.Supp. (D.N.J.1965), 987 369 F.2d distinguishable the case therefore denied, (3 1966), 698 386 Cir. cert. U.S. California, event, bar. In Chimel v. 965, 1044, 18 114 L.Ed.2d supra, prospective application in its and Preston, Explaining bearing the case has no outcome of on Bennett, 415 F.2d Cooper stated in at bar. United States v. v. State of Edwards, (2nd People 1969); 1113 v. 788, 790, Cir. 58, 59, 386 87 17 S.Ct. 713, Cal.Rptr. (Cal.1969); 633 458 P.2d 80 (1967): L.Ed.2d 730 Mancusi, York New ex rel. Muhammad v. in Preston it clear made ‘We F.Supp. N.Y.1969). (S.D. 301 1100 unrea- a search and seizure whether meaning it the Four We clear that within believe sonable depends to the teenth Amendment Amendment Fourth each case all preclude warrant- and Constitution does facts circumstances ' out, merely precludes “unrea particular, It pointed less searches. and constantly a warrant. cars that are sonable” searches made without searches 56, Rabinowitz, may make the search United States v. movable 430, reasonable 653 (1950); L.Ed. a warrant 94 car without bar, the California, supra. be the although the result v. one home, store, totality indicates in a search of the circumstances opposite closely re- piece property.’ incident to the search was and other fixed pocket finally hold that the de- We charging and arrest to the lated substantially taken from Garza of minimal residue contem- fendants. compared overwhelming to the charging of character the arrest poraneous correctly quantity of admitted evidence. the further On these the defendants. signifi reasonably It could have been knowledge prior had that the officers basis contributing been cant conviction defendants the search pocket of such residue as riding in the admission possession of narcotics while Fahy v. automobile, evidence was harmless error. Con we hold by necticut, precluded L.Ed. reasonable and not herein was merely judgment 2d conviction Amendment Fourteenth is affirmed. warrantless. cases the Idaho Our attention called to Oldham, P.2d Idaho State v. J., C. McFADDEN, DONALDSON ; Loyd, Idaho (1968) State SPEAR, JJ., concur. Haggard, P.2d State (1965); State Idaho 404 P.2d 580 (dissenting). McQUADE, Justice Bitz, (1965), Idaho 404 P.2d *5 Peterson, respectfully opin- State v. 81 Idaho dissent the I must

P.2d 444 While all of these cases majority. ion the of involved warrantless searches of automo- Today’s initially justified as decision biles, exception Bits, they turn- the of “substantially the rule set within of law given the having been ed consent to out in cases the fruits the crime of objects search seized which were plain sight in the within automobile sight. plain were in In Bits evidence and a search was therefore warrantless was obtained from search warrantless justified. See Harris United of the The defend- defendant’s automobile. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 390 U.S. apprehended top hiding ant therein on was (1968). The Harris case not at all au building burglarized of which had been thority support the of the dis admission and thereafter officers of the lo- informed puted in this In that evidence action. cation of his Five or six hours automobile. an used in the commission case thereafter the automobile located and was robbery impounded as evidence of a was the during searched. Articles obtained by police. the District of Columbia search of the automobile were later ad- vehicle, process impounding the of the in objection mitted of evidence over the he opened a officer door so It defendant. was held Bits he so up windows. did roll car’s When of such error. admission evidence was belonged registration he saw a card which The search of the neither automobile was view, lying plain robbery victim closely incident ac- to nor related up stripping of door face on the metal tivities or arrest the defendant. It was of the United sill. The substantially contemporaneous not with'the up opinion, per in a curiam brief totality arrest of the defendant. The registration as card held the use of surrounding the circumstances trial tradi Harris’ evidence in Bits indicates the warrantless open items view rule that tional clearly was unreasonable that case is key distinguishable seizure.1 subject from the case warrantless bar. something open plain sight, This traditional rule is based on the theory exposed public view, not in does such seizures are not products pro in because it searches. a “search” The interest volve privacy. not be That can tected the Fourth trusion into Amendment right privacy, See Ker v. citizen’s intru of this case. said 28, 42-43, privacy sions into that are the “searches” States A an item L.Ed.2d 726 which it refers. seizure of consideration in that case was that searches of automobiles repugnant were as evidence the course aof to the mandate Fourth Amendment having search, search. There been no there Constitution4 as and, privacy have been invasion they were dwellings made of and offices. therefore, required. no warrant was “Our cases make it clear that searches of motorcars must meet the test of reasonable The same can not be said of the case ness under the Fourth Amendment before only us. The before item seized from the evidence obtained result of such may Zamora automobile which have been searches is admissible.” The facts plain sight paper containing was the. sack very case were similar to the ones before only plant particles, a few a mere trace us. The defendants in were ar marijuana. open This lying sack was vagrancy charge rested on a sitting while board, “behind the front seat on the floor parked in a The car was not automobile. (testi driver’s side vehicle” time, at that searched but was art driven mony Ballou). descrip officer From the officer to the station then towed given by officers, tion appear it does not garage. There, soon after the defend sack, that this practically which contained booked, ants several substances, no narcotic plain sight. searched glove compart from the car important, What is more and what dis trunk, ment variety and discovered a tinguishes Harris, this case from is that this of items of the sort armed robbers. used sack was not happily seized as a result of a This against material was later used accidental glance plain sight. at an item in objections defendants their made at over paper bag was seized in the course of trial. thorough appellants’ search of the auto mobile, here, argued, based on all that the evidence as it is *6 record, it would search justified not have been but seizure “in- and as systematic, warrantless, Supreme cidental rummag to a lawful arrest.” The ing rejected search. Court of There is not a the United shred evi States support dence to majority’s being the contention as merit. In so contention without holding, Black, the items by police per taken the the that Court, from said: Justice them, car were seen or could have been “Unquestionably, person when a is law- by them, seen except in the course this arrested, fully police right, the warrantless Harris search. v. United warrant, without search to make a con- authority States is support to temporaneous person search of the of the in this case.2 weapons accused for or for fruits governing law implements searches of automo or to commit the crime. used * * * essentially right biles cases of this sort to search seize This and established in Preston to v. United States.3 without a search warrant extends case the Court of the things the accused’s immediate ** * unanimously control, and, held that unreasonable extent to an de- Lefkowitz, 465, mandate, 285 U.S. 452 at S.Ct. Amendment’s both The Fourth ; 420, (1932) 76 L.Ed. Go-Bart standards and the as its substantive Importing exclusionary them, U.S. Co. United rule which enforces is 344, 358, by operation 153, applicable 51 S.Ct. 75 L.Ed. 374 to the states Lee, United States v. 274 U.S. the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 559, 563, 746, Colorado, 71 L.Ed. Amendment. Wolf v. 338 U.S. (1927) ; (1949) ; 25, 1359, Hester v. United 93 L.Ed. 1782 57, 58, 445, Mapp Ohio, 643, 68 L.Ed. 898 S.Ct. 81 S.Ct. (1924). 1684, (1961) ; 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 State v. Bitz, Idaho 404 P.2d Accord, State, Nev., P.2d Scott v. 620, (2/27/70). 5. 376 at at 883. S.Ct. 3. 376 U.S. 11 L.Ed.2d case, place to have been made as incidental to

pending circumstances on the * * therefore, conclude, the arrest he place is and arrested[.] contemporaneous allowing the search of the a warrant car without rule failed to example, the test of reasonableness justified, meet is searches Amendment, things rendering weapons under the Fourth other need to seize and of- the evidence obtained a result of assault an as might be used to which escape, well as inadmissible.” or ficer effect prevent destruction the need to statement, In that States Su- ** But these *. evidence of the crime preme clearly rule delineated a search justifications absent where concerning and searches automobiles ar- is remote in time or arrest” limits “incidental to a lawful under arrest is rest. Once an accused exception rule. A warrantless to that custody, at then a search made cannot, search of after Pres- warrant, place, another without ton, justified be as incidental to an arrest * * arrest. .simply not incident to the longer the arrestee is no in or near assume, Here, may we as the Government car or not able to control the automobile. that, urges, arrests because either purpose This so ex- probable had valid ception weapons is to remove stolen, to think the car cause injure be used to officers or effect an right had the car when search the escape protect evidence from con- does first came on the But scene. this cealment Those are the or destruction. question of the reasonable- decide limits of the for the rule there- reason ness a search later time and fore, of the rule itself as articulated * * * place. another The search of Preston. petition- the car was not undertaken until very few other narrow ex companions been arrested er and his had ceptions the normal rule that valid police sta- custody taken into (cid:127)and necessary search warrant render a tion the car been towed under the Fourth Amend reasonable point garage. At there was a recognition ment are based on any danger that of the men arrested necessary “the some instances haste weapons have used car or *7 obtaining likely to burden of warrant destroyed any could evidence of governmental purpose behind frustrate ** Nor, .a crime *. men since the the search.” The United States police arrest at the station clearly has indicated that these ex custody in police -and was car solely exigencies ceptions are on the based danger garage, any was necessity, they be of should not and locality car be out moved of would application in by rules situations made into * ** jurisdiction. or We think purposes their would not be discreet Preston, of As true in none too time or was remote served.8 752, 367-368, Id., U.S. 8. v. at 883. See Chimel 84 S.Ct. 2034, 762-765, L.Ed.2d 89 S.Ct. Municipal Court, v. Camara (following (1969) v. United Preston 1733, 523, 533, 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 87 S.Ct. supra) ; States, v. United States Lei- Terry Ohio, see v. 930 1, Import- 1; kowitz, supra note Go-Bart (1968) 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 88 S.Ct. supra 1; ing States, note v. United Co. frisk) Warden, (stop ; Md. Peniten and 7, States, supra v. note Carroll United 298-300, tiary Hayden, v. 387 U.S. 280; Weeks U.S. at (1967) 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 383, 392, 232 U.S. pursuit) ; (search suspect during hot for a L.Ed. S.Ct. Carroll (1925) L.Ed. (search re a vehicle be of which jurisdiction). moved from closely Court, the circumstances which necessitate haste for a divided distinguished therefore, searches Preston allow warrantless as follows: present in this are case. Most remote case not Preston, “This nor is it con justifications all are the the “incident trolled it. Here the officers seized exception it to as a lawful arrest” petitioner’s car because they were re in Preston. The Zamoras were formulated quired do so to state They law. They longer no in or around the car. could seized it because crime for which They it nor move neither it. use could they petitioner. They arrested it seized anything in it to or harm impound it they keep had it escape. they make an not con- And until proceedings forfeiture were con destroy any ceal or of the evidence which subsequent cluded. The was, short, was seized from it. There car—whether had ‘legal State title’ justification no for the warrantless closely it or not—-was related to the petitioner arrested, reason thereby in this The the reason case. evidence been impounded, car had the rea appellants’ at the have been used should not son it being retained. The forfeiture trial. petitioner’s car not take until did however, urges, The State lawfully over four months after it was apply, should not Preston rule seized. be unreasonable hold would exception holding announced Preston police, having to retain the car Cooper applicable time, California9 custody length their for believe, right, protec is, even for their own this I case. This contention tion, to search it.”10 mistaken. Practically none of the considerations Cooper involved search of an important which were considered impounded automobile which un- had been Cooper holding present are this case. der California statutes which indistin- same, The statutes are the ours was but guishable from 37-3208 37-3209. I.C. §§ impound not used. was not Ricardo’s car require These impounding sections ed or months. retained evidence four any forfeiture of automobile used subject proceed It was not to a forfeiture possessing ing. crimes transporting planning a nar- were not to re custody tain the their Pontiac cotic. purpose statute is to time, appreciable length did in- hold such car as in a trial evidence therefore, cannot, use not. The State volving impound- those a car crimes. If explicitly turned pursuant ed be these statutes must held length under a of time the car was held until it is for- either declared special instance statute not used proceeding. feit or released in a forfeiture *8 repugnant an as excuse for search so The holding Cooper that was search requirements to the the and Fourth police an pursuant automobile the held The exist Fourteenth Amendments. mere (a such a following to statute crimi- week which, statutory procedure ence of a nal arrest) defendant’s was “reasonable” Cooper, might but was have been followed even if done reach- without In a warrant. not, search cannot this warrantless make ing conclusion, Black, that speaking “reasonable.”11 Justice 9. TJ.S. L.Ed.2d S.Ct. statute not render the search reason did theory that able. the fact overlooks it the held California court so because Id., 61-62, 10. at at 791. that bound to de understood it was that majority Cooper 1 1. The reasons that cision rules. Federal constitutional statutory People Cal.App.2d 587, not im Cooper, have turned on the pounding procedure, Cal.Rptr U.S., (1965) ; the Cali because at see 386 explicitly their fornia court had held that Federal S.Ct. 788. The constitu- Cooper, Black stated: In Justice “Preston vagrancy. was arrested for An ** n “Their car subsequent search arresting officer took his car to the sta closely petition- the reason was related to rather just leaving tion than it on the * * er was arrested street. It was suggested not that this language, majority seized on this 'The has was done other than for Preston’s con context, uses it applying it out of or police any venience that the had Cooper attempt an to draw this case within right impound to kept the car and it from on a Preston distinguish it from and to Preston or whomever he send for urges that theory. majority “nexus” (Emphasis it.” supplied) search Cooper that a warrantless held The case before us is and similar to Preston constitutionally reasonable is Cooper. unlike police, Here the is searched-for the evidence and employ did not I.C. 37-3208 §§ the defend- charge on which related 37-3209, did not to the car and hold majority has ant arre'sted or held. was obligated it hand over Ricardo Cooper. The im- opinion in misread the any representatives. Zamora or of his Al charge under portance the criminal though opinion confusing, Cooper is ar- Cooper was which the defendant ambiguous, remarkably unenlighteni relationship to lay not in its rested or held ng,13 blinking the fact that a result of war- the evidence seized as determinative consideration that case search, simple fact that rantless but police that required was hold charge police to im- a narcotics allowed the car period extended that pound pursuant car statute: the defendant could not it. have access to “But arrested Preston That was not true in case. theft, was vagrancy, and no claim not Cooper support does the con- Just authority that made tention all that is needed to metamor- charge. his on that search hold car phose a con- warrantless search into a though be his was treated as therefore stitutionally one is a “nexus” reasonable agent’s pos- car in his own was charge between the seized evidence and session, po- from intrusions safe arrested, no a defendant in- anyone The situation lice or else. quite may any different. volving petitioner’s car rule be derived from other Cooper may fairly un be tional rule announced doubted statutory Cooper opinion impounding procedure satisfactory has con the state vitality “reason- after Chimel rendered the warrantless search tinued Ark., Cooper 8; State, supra see case turned on note Steel able.” The (3/2/70). mid state existed 450 S.W.2d fact statute judgment, principles of it used. and reasoned v. Rabinowitz con fers the United U.S., 12. at 60 “the relevant test clusion procure it is reasonable whether majority opinion warrant, but whether I believe that juris 56, 66, utterly Cooper with the odds reasonable.” Rights. prudence Left Bill See cases 94 L.Ed. guide principles supra its de in has dear note 6. without cited disagree surprising chagrin, cision, confusion, spired is not *9 sterile, majority among the formal the has chosen the states between ment today’s upon g., theory See, decision which e. v. United Williams istic circuits. Cooper’s re States, 729, intended *10 The evidence can be established. authority to Today’s imperative.” decision shifts situation that course made n decide make 17 probable cause jurist a impartial a from an The majority, as today conveniently ig n officer investigation. heat of criminal right nores basic marijuana of these making an justify policeman if a can Now possessors subjected not to be to a warrant- justify ransacking the vehi- arrest, he can search, effectively less stifles the essential majority person The cle arrested. of the freedoms of all citizens of The Idaho. against today precise approves of the evil Frankfurter, words of belat his Justice designed which the Fourth Amendment was edly per justly vindicated18 dissent to the to be a bulwark. As observed decision, ished ap Rabinowitz most case: McDonald v. United States propriate in this context. dealing not with formalities. “We are “The old saw cases bad make hard serves presence of a search warrant law has experience. its basis in petty But grave high a function. Absent some cases are even more calculated to make n emergency,the has Amendment Fourth impact bad a little law. sordid citi- interposed magistrate between case apt implications to obscure police. zen was done generalization to which the case to shield criminals nor to make the home gives Only rise. thus can I account for It was illegal safe haven activities. a disregard history embedded n doneso objective that an mind the Fourth great Amendment and the weigh privacy need invade belongs Amendment right to enforce the order law. body of our liberties as recognized n privacyis precious entrust too deemed applied by unanimous decisions over job discretion those whose long history. stretch of the Court’s (cid:127)detection of crime and the arrest * * * n criminals. “It is summary history say And so the Con- a fair requires magistrate pass safeguards liberty stitution fre quently forged -on the desires of the before been in controversies privacy volving very so, violate the We people. home. nice And n cannotbe to that re- while we are true constitutional concerned here with quirement defrauder, shabby and excuse the absence of a we must deal ¡search showing by warrant without a really context of what are exemption great those seek expressed by who from the con- themes the Fourth n stitutionalmandate exigencies Amendment.” supra 451, 455-456, Rabinowitz, 17. 335 19. United States 68-69, L.Ed. 153 note 339 U.S. at California, supra Chimel note 760-761, U.S. at 89 S.Ct. 2034. notes this was 732-735 and rests. If 412 F.2d only 1969) (5th sult, Preston has ; I that Common conclude 5 Cir. can 285, Togo, Mass., sub silentio. See 248 N.E.2d been overruled wealth v. 65, supra, (1969). at it was When announced v. 286 greeted (dissenting opinion pleas of four it be overruled. that S.Ct. justices). Term, Court, g., B. 112, at 119-20 81 Harv.L.Rev. justification ence of Supreme Court case.14 United States for a warrantless reasoning Dento search —not passage of States the United mere of time— point. convincing is too to be on determinative. arid is Crouse,16 speaking Judge Hill, In Wood v. “The attempted distinction second in factually in a unanimous Court for a Dentó, namely, analysis of the nature of us, indistinguishable the one before relationship the between the offense analysis acutely the Dentó criticized prompting search, the arrest the later follows: can significance determining- in persuaded “This court whether cannot be the search only- was reasonable as it probable artificial at attempts distinction without relates cause. The- Court in a difference. The Court in Preston Dentó must have intended to. factor, way no indicate subsequent indicated that the time the search is. e., precise period closely i. time between when valid related the the reason related', search, for controlling. arrest and the was to be arrest because so when fact, probable the is the not indicate Court did cause for the search Cf., Butenko, of to note except amount time involved F.2d vacated, (3d 1967), that the the de- ‘soon after’ Cir. Alder fendants had at station. man been booked v. United S. Timing significant only Ct. is sense difficulty L.Ed.2d misconceives, the search is either at the time of with that position is that it not, not; the arrest is it or it if it is is function probable of cause in this con Thus, elapsed irrelevant whether the time is text. the fact that have- twenty probable or Rath- twenty minutes hours. dispense does not with the- cause er, distinction, clearly requirement indicat- Chap crucial of a search warrant. Preston, that if is man ed is arrest, made at the is con- time but L.Ed.2d 828 Conse quently, ducted a later time when the vehicle it prob the existence factors, jail, custody occupants cause, then and its presence able but search, justification justifying for incidental procure the failure to a war evidence, preserve pro- g., e. rant need to that is critical. [Footnote omitted] officers, arresting prevent tect the apparent When so it viewed becomes escape, longer no warrant obtains and the relationship between the offense Obviously, absence must be consequence secured. search is no since presence justification relationship bearing can have little depend solely upon wheth- search will not feasibility obtaining of first war ” delay lengthy. brief or Ac- er the (417 rant. F.2d [Footnote omitted] cordingly, nonexist- it is the existence or at 397-398). important that, only to note even 14.It “nexus” was between the evidence good theory law, charge appellants there was the “nexus” and tlie were Despite holding majority, by a con- no “nexus” in this ease. trary booked. The allowing implication the statement into evidence items which are majority, only booking charge, of the the record discloses facts will related per- appellants “fishing expeditions” part were arrested and that sonally invite on police. may well before the tobacco searched boot- Officers now marijuana strap illegal blatently There appel- discovered. tin intrusions into citi- absolutely privacy evidence that zens’ reason- into constitutional marijuana possessed completed hands lants ableness once the search is appellants merely making charge booking the time the con- illegally arrested. There is no indication form to the seized. evidence charge appellants ar- what (3d 1967). 15. 382 F.2d 361 Cir. what Without some indication of rested. charge was, (10th 1969). no “nexus” between 417 F.2d 394 Cir.