United States v. George Ochs

FRIENDLY, Before MANSFIELD and MESKILL, Judges. Circuit FRIENDLY, Judge: Circuit George subject Ochs was the of a seven October, count indictment filed 1977 in the District for the Southern District of New charged York. Count One him with the use of extortionate means to collect a loan McElroy, he had made to Debbie violation of 18 U.S.C. 894. § Count Two charged justice that he had obstructed endeavoring to influence subpoe- witnesses testify grand naed to jury, before a in viola- tion of 18 U.S.C. 1503. Counts Three § through charged Five falsely he had subscribed income tax returns 1972 in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1) by claiming personal exemptions § to which he knew he was not entitled. charged Count Six him with failure to file return, his 1974 income tax in violation of 26 U.S.C. charged Count Seven § him evading his 1974 federal income taxes, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § ty department Altman proof at a trial before B. store at Government’s Judge Cooper Fifth Avenue and 35th Street New York jury sufficiently and a dem- City, O’Malley Kelly Police Officers during years onstrated Bielefeld, signalled by were Theodore through 1976 operated Ochs owned and security. store’s assistant director He City massage parlor New York and con- “ring” men, informed the officers that a loansharking ducted a business and that in three, engaged cashing he believed loansharking the course of his activities Express stolen American travelers’ checks Ochs threatened to murder Debbie Frank just passed and had such checks in the McElroy, prostitute employed whom he store; that two of them were then seated in massage parlor, his Studio One for failure parked a blue Cadillac automobile on East payments to make interest on a usurious 35th between Fifth and Madison Av- Street loan. The sever- evidence further revealed third, enues and a known to Bielefeld as al violations of the federal income tax laws. longer Julian sight; Mitchell was no On his and 1973 tax returns Ochs, described, whom Bielefeld Ochs claimed exemptions false for a non-ex- just brought goods to the store for refund children, istent wife and several and in 1974 procured by Mitchell with stolen American $25,000 Ochs received in income from his Express checks previous day but “for prostitution and loansharking businesses an unknown reason” had not obtained a report; which he did not indeed Ochs filed refund and had left the refund counter. no tax return for Finally, while Ochs Bielefeld had observed Ochs enter the Cad- being investigated by grand was a federal photostatic illac. He showed the officers sitting jury in the Southern District of New copies Express of stolen American checks York, approached he witnesses who were the name of O. Grable that had been cashed subpoenaed appear before grand jury previous day in the store the picture and a and instructed questioned them to lie when of Mitchell. After Bielefeld had confirmed payments about of interest made on loans. Cadillac, that the two men were still in the Ochs instructed the witnesses in the alter- it, approached the officers O’Malley on the native to refuse to testify grand before the sitting, driver’s side where Ochs was Kelly jury by asserting their Fifth Amendment passenger side where one Liveo was privilege. O’Malley perceived seated. that Ochs fitted jury The guilty found Ochs on all counts. description given by Bielefeld and ob- Judge Cooper sentenced him to consecutive open served that an knife on the front seat imprisonment terms of years of seven on between and Liveo. One of the offi- Ochs One, years Two, Count five on Count three knife, opened cers the car and seized the years Three, on each of counts Four and knife, they gravity identified as a as Five, years Seven, and two on Count a for 265.00(5), defined in New York Penal Law § twenty-three total of years.1 misdemeanor, possession is a of which and possession by any person previously if I. Search and Seizure crime,2 felony, 265.02(1). a convicted of id. § point The reversal most strongly The officers then ordered Ochs and Liveo pressed by Ochs is that he subject was the out car and frisked them without of the of an illegal search. After a two day hear- However, O’Malley frisking result. ing, the district court rendered an opinion Liveo, object on the left he noticed a black denying suppression. 461 F.Supp. Thinking might front wheel well floor. The circumstances were as follows: posses- took weapon, be a he reached and cruising While patrol a car in the af- object, which turned out to be a sion of the September ternoon of in the vicini- Express checks in the book of American judge suspended imposition 1. The prior of sen- 2. five convictions. Ochs had regarded tence on Six Count which he as a encompassed by lesser included offense Count Seven. Grable, papers, starting (the with the ledger of O. identical with those used sheets

name clear). Mitchell Altman’s. order after that is not The loose ledger sheets were marked Be- “Studio 1”. warn- administering After the Miranda cause he had been to a 1” on “Studio before ings, questioned the officers about the Ochs police calls, O’Malley Officer was aware ownership of the Ochs said it automobile. city a 1” there existed “Studio belonged say to a friend but could prostitution. which was house of How- where the time. He friend was at ever, expertise no was needed to detect produced a New York driver’s license State sheets, containing the first names of these registration and certificate for vehicle out, “models”), women times and (styled Narday. O’Malley in the name of Otto fees, customer “model” were the rec- upper portion regis- that the of the claimed going ords of an establishment. In with, such tampered tration certificate had been through bankbooks ob- the officers having changed a “7” “f”.3 served three of the books were in O’Malley legal tried to car’s verify the persons names of other than Ochs or Nar- through status Crime Infor- National day. noticing upon testified that Computer mation but static interfered. they this discrepancy came to believe Obtaining car, aid from another bankbooks stolen. The officers O’Malley arrested and handcuffed Ochs and cards, also examined the loose index possession Liveo gravity knife notebooks, went through which turned removed them to the Midtown South out to contain records of ac- loansharking arranged station house. He also he O’Malley tivities. Officer testified that policemen one drive Cadillac upon “vig.”, had come a mention of a stan- precinct, the same where it was “vouch- loansharking for penalty dard term in ered”. but, being on a payment, late confronted having placed After Liveo Ochs and in a books, any- was unable to locate cell, O’Malley detention Kelly searched thing more than a “v” before a date and a the Cadillac and inventory made an of its money sum middle of one of them. contents. The yielded a .32 caliber All were seized. these items Ochs claims pistol, revolver, starter’s a simulated a scan- reading that the and seizure of the contents ning (a receiver device used to listen to rights of the briefcase violated his under police transmissions), radio B. a Altman the Amendment. Fourth sweater, a second book of stolen travelers’ checks, and, in the footwells the back riposte The first is Government’s a chal- seat, two unlocked briefcases which were lenge standing. As the to Ochs’ briefs were taken into the police station. These were argument filed was had the and before examined, protest, without presence in the Supreme decision in Illi- Court’s Rakas v. of Ochs who was nearby in the - detention nois, -, S.Ct. cell. (1978), the L.Ed.2d debate was couched States, v. United One of the in terms of Jones 362 U.S. briefcases X contained 8" 14" sheets, ledger (1960) and loose “index S.Ct. bearing cards” States, names and showing Brown what v. United appeared to be payments, (1973), loans and with Ochs bankbooks, four S.Ct. two small notebooks “legitimate- fact that he was containing records, relying loan on the a and occurrfed]”, calculator. The where a search ly premises search of pa- these pers appears to have appar- 80 S.Ct. at phases. in two U.S. at police view, The first through leafed in his when the papers ently being, the automo- contraband, to ascertain whether any Under Rakas that alone is mon- bile was seized. -— valuables, ey, etc. sufficient, -, were mixed in U.S. at among not them. Then the police obliged read he some the 421. Now to show that Ochs Narday belonged indebted, testified that in fact car use it he and could whenever desired him, Ochs, but heavily to whom he was in fact had it time. 90% does not seriously dispute Ochs privacy expectation of legitimate had a to arrest him cause police probable the briefcas- had respect to contents with trafficking in travelers’ teachings of both for stolen es, apply we must of a being possession such and for in determining constitutes checks in what Rakas dealing we here gravity the users of knife. Since are on the expectation part which, sharp contrast with an automobile an automobile. Hampshire, Coolidge the car in v. New The Court found that Rakas 29 L.Ed.2d merely pas companion, who were King, his illegal being used for an owner, had no in a car driven its sengers in the drive purpose parked and was expectation respect legitimate with such public a the owner’s house but on way “[t]hey since objects seized that car street, police were entitled to search possessory a property neither a nor asserted additional stolen checks and spot automobile, interest in the nor an interest were not weapons, even areas that at-, seized.” property -U.S. “grabbing distance” under Chimel within inter- asserted no at 433. Ochs also California, Indeed, property he de- est in the seized. n.9, 89 (1969). See id. at 764 to sub- invitation clined Government’s 2034; Maroney, Chambers suppres- “possessory a affidavit” at mit 42, 50-52, pro- hearing.4 He asserted no sion likewise Moreover, police were not re automobile, al- prietary interest time and the search at that quired to make trial claimed though the Government parked on a place. illegally The car was However, he was the de facto owner. during the af City York street busy New possessory shows that he had a the record hour, were enti rush ternoon above, As see in the car. indicated interest occupants take it and its tled to him owner allowed supra, note 3 record safely be precinct, where a search could it whenever he wished Ochs to use Maroney, supra, made. Chambers privilege. himself freely availed n.10, 90 S.Ct. 1975. U.S. at on which the Rakas Court very grounds there, supra, car was distinguished Jones United Once the prompt right favor. was the case make work Ochs’ Just as had the same before, since, given they had apartment, with Jones and his friend’s Ochs search of it as existed, cause to search only permission “not use” the car but the probable practi in terms of key” respect to it. is little to choose Except “had “there an immediate owner, between complete consequences Ochs “had dominion cal and the car’s im over the could ex- a warrant and control” car “and search without reach a warrant is obtained.” others from it.” We therefore mobilization until clude 52, at Maroney, supra, 399 U.S. his claim on its merits. Chambers v. Rakas,-U.S. self-contradiction, Despite at- see-U.S. 4. the Court’s refusal in cutorial n.4, - n.6, at-n.l, 421, 421, 421 at 99 S.Ct. 99 S.Ct. to remand in order 99 S.Ct. opinion). (dissenting petitioners opportunity There was no such neces- to claim afford another interest, sary proprietary possessory in the state Rakas since or we would self-contradiction dismissing if defend- Fourth have contended that even the be concerned about Ochs’ could property posses- nor his failure to ants had neither sion, interest Amendment claim on the basis of knowledge prior the rifle of the use of such an the time their assert interest. At White, rely probative hearing suppression had value. Justice reason to on and shells Ochs had self-contradiction, dissent, “legitimate presence” theory, the view took and there in - the - n.6, 421, the and the U.S. at no occasion for assert was him to below, Rakas, Ill.App.3d People v. 46 and its his when this decision briefcase contents were 877, (1977), 569, unnecessary 360 1252 suppression 4 Ill.Dec. N.E.2d claim. seemed his 879, Moreover, 4 360 N.E.2d this. See Ill.Dec. at the at trial indicates Government asserted light of our that Ochs the and 1254. In conclusion that Ochs was owner of the briefcase at contents, possessory standing previously interest because his as it had conceded that had its automobile, unnecessary to It we find it it would. is not clear whether Rakas elimi- the prose- standing” “automatic this issue. nates in cases of resolve 1254 no S.Ct., We see indication that the au plurality at As

90 said 463, Coolidge, opinion supra, 403 at U.S. thority impaired. has been Chambers S.Ct., 2036, police may 91 at “where the opinion Coolidge v. New plurality and an Car stop automobile under 459-60, supra, Hampshire, 403 U.S. at 91 roll, 132, 267 U.S. [Carroll 2022, pains distinguish was at S.Ct. 280, (1925)] they may 69 L.Ed. S.Ct. [45 543] being car inapplicable Chambers as to a not seize at also it and search it later any engaged claimed to have been then station.” also teaches that “the Chambers illegal activity parked Coolidge’s at and mobility of the car obtains at [still home, weeks after which seized several unless Fourth station Amend house] commenced, investigation an see 403 had permits ment a warrantless seizure of the 523, n.20, U.S. at 463-64 & until anyone car and the denial of its use to White). (opinion 2022 In Mr. Justice 52, a warrant 90 secured.” 399 U.S. Lewis, 583, Cardwell v. S.Ct., case, present In the this 2464, 41 four Justices car, “mobility” of the and the resultant thought applicable, Chambers to four search, exigency particularly were be, thought casting it not to vote pressing, since Ochs was not the owner of car, ground went on a that avoided decision of friend, his Narday, whom Mitchell, thieving any the third member of the merits. In event case differed alerted, party, might have could from and from ours in Chambers claimed it and its contents at time. See arrest of the defendant the seizure of Frick, 666, United States v. F.2d 669-70 car exigent were not made under cir (5 1973), denied, 831, Cir. cert. U.S. cumstances; ample there had been time to (1974); S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 57 procure a warrant before the car was Evans, (9 States Cir. Finally, although question may seized. may Such a search include contain closer, Chadwick, supra, United States v. which police ers have probable cause to U.S. may believe contain crime evidence (1977), did affect viability of Cham justifies See, g., which the search. e. Unit bers on such facts as these.5 The Chief Tramunti, ed 513 F.2d Justice there stressed that the Government (2 1975), denied, Cir. cert. did “not contend the footlocker’s brief (1975); 46 L.Ed.2d 50 contact with Chadwick’s car makes Canada, (9 527 F.2d 1379-80 search”, S.Ct., automobile 433 U.S. at Cir. cert. 2483-2484, and noted that the “ sustained ‘warrantless searches of vehicles Davis, 1031-32 possibilities in cases in 1974); Frick, being vehicle’s removed or at 669-70 evidence remote, destroyed in it if not non-exis contrary, thought Eighth 5. Some courts have see And even the Circuit has some shown Stevie, beyond lug reluctance extend Chadwick cert, 1978) filed, (en banc) petition Neumann, gage, see United States v. (U.S. 15, 1978) (No. 78-971) (closed L.W. Dec. 1978) box can be (luggage stopped highway seized car searched). Stevie, See also United States v. only pursuant warrant); can supra, searched J., dissenting); (Gibson, 582 at 1180 Vallieres, 186, F.Supp. 443 39, 191 F.Supp. Currington, States 451 (D.Conn. 1977); State, see also Sanders v. 262 (S.D.N.Y.1978); 43—44 & n.6 595, (1977), granted, Ark. - 559 S.W.2d 704 McGrath, 1338, cert. F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y. 1341-42 448 -, 247, U.S. 58 S.Ct. 1978). Our v. Marc- statement (1978) (No. 77-1497). Circuit, The Ninth how hand, 983, (2 1977), Cir. cert. ever, luggage pur has concluded that searches 1015, 732, 434 U.S. 54 L.Ed.2d by suant Chambers remain untouched Chad (1978), Judge criticized Chief Gibson wick, Finnegan, see United States v. Stevie, bearing in his no on the dissent has 637, (9 1977). See also United States problem of automobile searches. Gaultney, 1137, 1978). ” impair S.Ct., ground that Chadwick did not tent,’ quoting at id. at 441-42, Dombrowski, than on our decision in Chambers rather Cady v. U.S. Reda, 563 F.2d 510 (1973), L.Ed.2d 706 and United 435 U.S. citing Maroney. The reason Chambers (1978), holding Chad for the failure to contend Government’s inapplicable pre-Chadwick governed by case was wick Chadwick also not an automo searches —in that case was that the footlocker Chambers doubtless that Reda Appellant claims bile search. had never been in the automobile in to the remand of weight sense; gave inadequate placed it had been meaningful v. United trunk, Schleis open, engine which was and the still (1977), for fur at had not been started. Chadwick, see ther consideration pass Ct. 2476. The Court did not remand, 1173—74 opinion on search of suitcases legality of a warrantless was decided n.6 Cir. Chadwick & car, within the since the Government had by Reda’s conviction after an affirmance of question ruling into the adverse not drawn the effect of oral order from the bench and Appeals point, of the on this petition pro was raised on a se Chadwick n.1, at 5 and none of the rehearing. petition Neither the nor the for ques majority save Mr. Justice Brennan response panel’s called the Government’s Mr. Black- tioned the assertion of Justice to the remand of While attention Schleis.6 (joined by Rehnquist) mun Mr. Justice circuit, the law of this we Reda remains dissent, agents postponed that “if the we consider a rely on it when what need just longer the arrest a few minutes until for decision is avail satisfactory more basis away, then respondents started to drive able. seized, the car could have been taken to the office, agents’ and all its contents —includ of Chambers While substitution

ing the without a war footlocker —searched Opperman, 428 U.S. Dakota v. South n.4, S.Ct., at 2489. rant.” Id. at 22-23 & Two additional circumstances further dis authority relied on the district court tinguish this case from Chadwick. for what it held to be valid as the basis first, is that consequence, of lesser search, at inventory see 461 does briefcases, footlocker, unlike the Chadwick case, proper not end the it affords exigent were not locked. The second is is no reason analysis. There framework arising circumstance from the likelihood of in this case why the conduct of the Narday’s appearing at the station and de limited under the more should be tested its This manding the car and contents. Opperman, appropriate to the principles of already the statement implicates directly when there was no taking inventory of an quoted probable from that when Chambers might that the car contain reason to believe exists, cause must be allowed to enterprise. the fruits or means of a criminal thorough investigative make a search of a Powell, Mr. whose vote There Justice Fourth car and its contents “unless the up majority, pointedly needed to make permits Amendment a warrantless seizure S.Ct., n.7, observed, at 380 of the car and the of its use to denial 3102: secured”, 399 anyone until a warrant part inventory of their As Chadwick, S.Ct., supra, see such as let- police may discover materials n.8, 97 433 U.S. at 13-14 upon inti- that “touch ters or checkbooks personal an individual’s does not mate areas of Since in our view Chadwick affairs,” per- about a of the “reveal much make the search of the contents associations, activities, and beliefs.” per violation of the Fourth briefcase a se son’s Shultz, Amendment, prefer to rest our decision Bankers Assn. we California Montgomery, bearing Supreme 558 F.2d 311 remand 6. The Court’s panel relied. the Reda on which of Schleis was likewise not discussed 1256 case, 1494, 1525, did not It 21, 78-79, exceed reasonable bounds. 39

U.S. S.Ct. [94 J., (1974) (Powell, L.Ed.2d concur- could since v. argued be Chimel Cali- 812] States, ring). 752, 2034, v. United fornia, See also Fisher 89 23 supra, 395 S.Ct. U.S. 391, n.7, 1569, 1576, 425 401 S.Ct. U.S. overrule Harris v. [96 L.Ed.2d 685 did not Unit- (1976). L.Ed.2d In this case the 48 States, 145, 1098, 91 ed 67 39] 331 S.Ct. U.S. found, alia, police inter “miscellaneous (1947), Ra- L.Ed. 1399 and United States v. checkbook, papers,” a an installment loan binovitz, 56, 430, 70 339 S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. U.S. book, security and a social status card. applied 653 automobile however, is, . There no evidence searches, 9, 2034, 764 n. 395 89 U.S. S.Ct. carrying in the record that their out question readily is answered in favor duties inventory established the Vermil- However, not the Government. we are lion do other than search for and obliged go so far. storage property remove for such without proposition We with the start examining its contents. legal that when in the course warrant- Marshall, speaking Mr. Justice for four Jus- less upon search a officer comes tices, n.6, S.Ct., 3107, 428 96 U.S. at 388 suspicious object, inspect is he entitled agreed with this on to “. and went and, fruits, if it consists instrumentalities opinion note does not Court’s au- crime, it, or evidence of to seize even suitcases, inspection boxes, thorize the though justi not that the crime was which might other containers which themselves be States, fied v. the search. Harris United sealed, removed, and secured without fur- 154-55, 1098, supra, 67 91 331 S.Ct. U.S. sure, ther intrusion.” To it is also true 1399;7 L.Ed. Abel United 362 plurality opinion that neither the nor Mr. 217, 234-40, 683, U.S. 4 668 L.Ed.2d says Justice Powell’s concurrence in- (1960); Coolidge Hampshire, New 403 spection of containers is authorized in 443, 465-66, 2022, U.S. search, inventory arguably an such con- (1971) opinion); 564 tainers, unlocked, (plurality least if should be as Robinson, 218, 236, 414 inspectable glove as the U.S. 94 compart- unlocked 467, in Opperman, (1973); ment could S.Ct. 38 427 also have L.Ed.2d Gustafson Florida, 260, 488, been sealed. Be all as it may, this 414 94 38 U.S. S.Ct. question Opperman permits whether inspec- (1973); L.Ed.2d 456 United States v. Duck ett, tion sealable containers as an 1309, incident to (5th 1978); 583 F.2d 1312-13 inventory one, an open see, is an serious Bertucci, 1144, 532 States v. F.2d Hill, e. g., United 458 F.Supp. States v. 31 (7 Cir.), denied, 895, 429 97 cert. U.S. (D.D.C.1978), and there is no why reason 256, (1976); S.Ct. L.Ed.2d have Government should to assume the Bell, Cir.), States v. burden of showing that search of Ochs’ denied, cert. U.S. S.Ct. briefcases permissible as an incident to (1972); cf. inventory search when Chambers al- Pugh, 1977), 627-28 lowed an investigative search. It is of no denied, cert. importance police may (1978); L.Ed.2d 393 v. Rol thought only power their was to make an lins, cert. inventory; the test is lawfully what could done, policemen not what thought (1976); Wy the source of their power be. socki, (5 Cir.), cert. whether, question granted serious this, search, all particularly reading United States v. Pat terson, seizure of records found in the brief- Although California, supra, proposition Chimel Harris was cited for in United Robinson, U.S. at overruled Harris respect permitted area of the search, holding, it did not reflect

1257 2022, 748, namely, 30 91 S.Ct. that a lawful denied, 1064, 404 U.S. 92 S.Ct. Simp v. (1972); United 752 States discovery L.Ed.2d that the progress in must be denied, (10 408 son, Cir.), cert. 453 F.2d 1028 inadvertent, as well must be of the evidence 925, 2504, 337 33 L.Ed.2d 92 S.Ct. U.S. condition, 466-67, 403 at 91 S.Ct. as the U.S. Garner, 451 F.2d v. (1972); United States 2038, original “the extension v. 1971); (6 and United States 167 Cir. it is legitimate only where justification 1971). Gomori, (4 This 437 F.2d 312 Cir. apparent immediately reading and readily sustains the principle We evidence them.”8 they have before records, ledger 1 loose seizure of Studio respect to the same conclusion with reach of crime sheets whose value evidence cards”, parties speak of as “index what the if their Even apparent on face. greater sense of appellation conveying an rely obliged on were here Government Compare formality than is warranted. doctrine, of these “plain view” seizure Teller, supra, States v. 412 F.2d United stat express the two limitations sheets met cards, appear 379. These also Coolidge v. in by ed Mr. Justice Stewart 467-71, loose, writings supra, are full of describ Hampshire, New 403 U.S. have been book); Gargotto, Berenguer, United States v. 476 F.2d panel 562 in United v. 8. The remand, 206, 1009, (2 1977), rephrased (6 1973), this to 210 Cir. F.2d 1013-15 Cir. affd after cert, incriminatory denied, be immedi- (6 must 1974), read “its nature 421 510 F.2d 409 Cir. seemingly ately applied apparent.” 987, We this 1990, (1975) U.S. 95 S.Ct. 44 477 L.Ed.2d Diaz, v. formulation United States stricter (betting investiga- during records seized arson 821, (2 1978), but found F.2d 833 Cir. 577 Damitz, (9 tion); United States v. F.2d 50 495 an to be satisfied. In so confused condition area, 1974) (notebook recording drug used for Cir. best to the exact lan- it seems stick to 456, Smith, weights); United 462 F.2d States v. opinion Supreme plurality guage of the Court’s (8 1972) (lease); States v. 461 Cir. United slightly. rather than embroider on even Henkel, 777, 1971), (34 Cir. 451 F.2d 781 & n. given guidance has little as to The Court cert, denied, 144, 859, 34 409 93 S.Ct. quoted phrase in text. what it meant (1972) (serial numbers); 104 L.Ed.2d Stewart, Coolidge, cites his concur- Justice Maude, 378, 384-86, U.S.App.D.C. 156 States v. ring opinion Stanley Georgia, 394 U.S. v. 1062, (identification (1973) F.2d 1069-71 481 569-72, 557, 1243, 542 89 S.Ct. 22 L.Ed.2d 374, Teller, cards); United States 412 F.2d v. concurring where three would Justices cert, denied, 949, 1969), (7 91 379 Cir. 402 U.S. police, have found unlawful a search in which 1603, (1971) (index 29 L.Ed.2d 118 cards discovering during after film reels a search numbers); States v. Calla- with license pursuant to warrant for evidence of bookmak- (papers brass, F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y.1978) 458 964 (on ing, projector the films viewed fire); Valli- seized at scene of premises) seized See them as obscene. 186, (ad- eres, (D.Conn.1977) F.Supp. 443 191 172, Hunt, F.Supp. United States v. also 366 car); unzipped bag trunk of book in dress grounds, (N.D.Tex.1973), 181 different rev’d on 1023, Menke, F.Supp. 1026 this, United States v. 339 (5 F.2d 931 Short of 505 Cir. grounds, (W.D.Pa.), 468 only 4 rev’d on different n. question in two seems to raised have been mailing 1972) (address (3 book See Sediilo F.2d 20 Cir. dissents from denials of certiorari. 211, States, 947, Ben- registry slip). v. 95 S.Ct. See United States v. United also J., (1974) dissenting); 1969), (Douglas, nett, 888, (2 L.Ed.2d 168 409 F.2d 896-97 1, 979, 113, 980 n. denied, v. United 419 U.S. Gentile 396 U.S. J., (Douglas, (1974) Jenkins, (1969); F.2d dissenting). cert, denied, (2 1974), 420 U.S. 72-74 one, courts, including this A number of State, (1975); Taylor upheld without much discussion the seizure affd, (D.Minn.1972), F.Supp. during an search as documents otherwise valid cert, 1972), (8 1119 Cir. “plain notwithstanding fact that view” contra, In re brief, perusal, generally fairly of the doc- some Calandra, (N.D.Ohio clearly necessary for the uments was in order 1971), affd sub nom. United States Calan- perceive the the docu- relevance of dra, rev’d on differ- Warden, Mapp to crime. ment grounds, ent cert, 1172 Cir. recently (1974). As this court has (rent (1976) stated, require inves- “It would absurd to receipts); Pugh, supra, tigator to be oblivious to that which (log drug 637-38 distributions anyone powers apparent else with normal seized after view book entitled “Cocaine Warden, supra, Mapp observation.” Parker, Handbook”); Users F.2d at (ledger 1976) Moreover, 1976); ing payments. on 531 F.2d United loans and one Cir. us samples, Truitt, of the two cards submitted to States v. loan entry records a to very first Debbie Blake, 1975); 484 United States v. $1,500, repayable [McElroy] Frank in 21 50, 57 cert. each, weekly payments of and the $100 (1974); other seems to of card show $555 loan Benn, F.Supp. United v. States repayable weekly 5in instalments of $135. (E.D.N.Y.1977). Although one court has suggested probable that more than cause is time, By police this had Smollar, required, see States v.

probable to believe that Ochs cause F.Supp. 628, (S.D.N.Y.1972), even engaged only trafficking in that stolen carrying gravity require travelers’ checks and court did not that officers be “abso knife, also in the of a house of but conduct lutely they that certain” have evidence be prostitution possibly and a large scale and They may fore them. Id. test their belief lending illegal operation. police The were by proceeding inspection with a limited glance through entitled to bankbooks “incriminating object.” See, g., e. Unit and the two notebooks to ascertain whether Pugh, supra, ed States v. 566 F.2d at 627- they constituted evidence or instrumentali 28; Duckett, supra, United States v. relating ties to the stolen travelers’ check 1313; Warden, Mapp supra, F.2d at v. Frick, ring. supra, United States v. 1172; Patterson, F.2d at United States v. they not, F.2d at 669-70. But even if were supra, 427; at United States v. highly suspi closed records had become 56; Damitz, supra, 495 F.2d at provided cious in of the information Blake, 57; supra, States v. 484 F.2d at Unit open police ones. opened When the Smollar, supra, ed States v. at bankbooks, suspicions the four their Surely police prob had case heightened reasonably by the fact able cause to remaining believe three of these were in other names than might records constitute further evidence those of Ochs and Narday. See United any one of the several crimes that had Duckett, supra, F.2d at 1312- progressively unfolding before their 13; Sedillo, 496 F.2d 151 eyes. loansharking Prostitution are crimes that record keeping, demand and the 42 L.Ed.2d 168 With so proximity of these closed records to the way much in the of cause to believe in Ochs’ clearly incriminating loose records in the widespread participation in criminal activi very gave proba same police briefcase ties, inspection and seizure two note ble cause to believe that the closed records showing books loan transactions did not vio might relating contain evidence late the plurality opinion command crimes already discovered. The standard Coolidge ‘plain that “the may view’ doctrine probable cause seizure of docu not be to general used extend a exploratory ments appears to be the it is same as object search from one to another until respect to other seizure “mere evi something incriminating last emerges,” at e., probable dence” —i. cause must exam S.Ct. at even if the ined in terms of cause to believe to rely Government had it. On the sought particular ap evidence will aid in a contrary, police here advanced from in prehension In or conviction. this examina object criminating incriminating object. tion, police purposes is re consideration Even the plain under view doctrine in the quired. Hayden, Warden incriminating object gener nature of an is 18 L.Ed.2d 782 ally “immediately apparent” deemed where Maryland, Andresen probable cause believe it See, (1976). Here, evidence of crime. g., e. United States Duckett, 1313-14; supra, probable seems clear Johnson, cause to potentially seize the records as 1976); Clark, constituting evidence instrumentalities required “consider whether “particular” there are relating any one of three very nature crimes. items evidential value whose precludes being object them from of a circumstances, it all Under these gave reasonable search and seizure.” We and human common sense outrage problem some attention to this the Fourth Amendment nature read Bennett, supra, 409 F.2d at 895— lawfully opened require having that after required it. being without to resolve inspected the the briefcase and Studio Supreme recently Court has held sheets, least ledger the cards v. Maryland, Andresen 427 U.S. bankbooks, police the front sheets (1976), 49 L.Ed.2d 627 that a interrupt to their work required should seizure, proper pursuant search and to a going fur apply a warrant before and warrant, incriminating of a defendant’s ther, telling when was particularly there no voluntarily business records which had been might up and Narday when show demand writing to no reduced offended Fifth the car and its contents. the return of See Amendment interests the defendant. Id. Caldwell, F.Supp. v. 53 n. Lowe 474-77, 2737. The Court found (S.D.Ga.1973), vacated and remanded sub that, provided the search and seizure met (5 Hopper, nom. Lowe v. 501 F.2d 952 Cir. requirements of fourth the amend- to, 1974), (S.D.Ga.), adhered clause, privacy ment’s warrant interests are aff'd, (5 1975). 520 F.2d 1045 Cir. Note, adequately Formal- protected. See gives pause What a certain amount of Realism, ism, Constitutionally Legal and about this case is that the material seized Privacy Protected under the Fourth and police Chambers-justified by the in their Amendments, Fifth 90 Harv.L.Rev. investigative was inspection of briefcase (1977). The did Court Andresen not ad- not or contraband but records. hardware question dress the of warrantless searches rule of v. Lef- Under old recognized which fall within documents 452, 465-66, kowitz, 285 U.S. requirement.9 exceptions to the warrant (1932), L.Ed. the search the brief- question, we Ochs has not raised the Since encompassed could have lawfully case reason to do so here.10 see no rule ab- “mere evidence.” When that was Hayden, rogated Warden II. of Trial Error Claims 303, 87 18 L.Ed.2d 782 a series of attacks on the Ochs mounts (1967),the noted that the items there Court only trial. These deserve issue not “testimonial” or “commu- conduct nicative” in nature and that it' was thus not treatment. brief (1967), The in An- 9. documents listed in the warrant majority dresen were evidence of real estate fraud and a a had that case held that when car dealings relating single were limited to to lot request a been seized at the owner under (13T). Some were seized re- Law, documents which 424(3) of New York’s Vehicle & Traffic § lot, lated a different and these documents grants “power police which to seize a officer charges” were used “to secure additional any motor when is vehicle . there against the defendant. Id. 427 U.S. at good motor vehicle reason to believe that such However, S.Ct. 2737. found that the . stolen . vehi- has been . warrant, they documents were within the since subject cle and its to search contents were respect admissible with to lot possessory supe- interest since the had “proof 13T of similar acts is admissible to Here had not stolen rior to thiefs. Ochs show Id. at intent.” S.Ct. at car, far we are from satisfied that probable to think he had. cause In we find need to view of our conclusion no did; Indeed, they really questionable by theory propounded alternative consider an station, they precinct no when arrived at the the Government on basis of United States made to ascertain from the further effort was Zaicek, (2 1975). Relying 519 F.2d 412 Computer National Information whether Crime analogy arising supposed under to cases of stolen cars. was on the list Cadillac forfeiting federal and state statutes vehicles Government, contraband, carry which see United States v. advanced Other theories cert, Francolino, 1966), sound, F.2d if it no further than even would lead denied, Maroney. application does the Chambers California, Cooper repay Again objection possible first Ochs. we see no relates “prejudicial” evidence Ochs’ admission of merit in the that it error to allow claim was loansharking engagement prostitu testify in numerous debtors Ochs directly relevant to tion. This evidence structed them to mail remittances to “Gam charged Ochs with Count Seven bino” at a If Bronx address. Ochs chose evading income taxes on federal “income make false of the name of a use well-known extortion, loansharking derived from fear, figure underworld must instill he McGrath, prostitution,” United States consequences. bear the United States v. 558 F.2d 1102 Cir. 434 Cirillo, 1240; supra, 468 Zito, 1405 Cir. Eliano, (1978); and also afforded neces complains next trial Ochs sary background jus to the obstruction of court’s denial his to sever the tax of motion Weiss, tice count. See counts under To obtain re F.R.Cr.P. 14.11 (2 Cir.), cert. versal, Ochs must show that refusal 833, 58, (1974). U.S. 42 L.Ed.2d 59 sever unfairly prejudicial was so as to con Objection a tape recording to admission of stitute an of As have abuse discretion. we attempt O’Malley of Ochs’ to bribe Officer “ noted, recently are reluctant to ‘[W]e perjure to himself about where and how the overturn a of motion conviction denial in knife was found the Cadillac is likewise showing for severance unless there is a of attempted bribery without merit. The was prejudice. . . not substantial . It is showing admissible as consciousness of merely sufficient to show that the accused Cirillo, guilt, see United States v. F.2d acquit would have had better chance for 1233, denied, (2 cert. ” at a separate tal trial.’ United States 989, 1501, 36 L.Ed.2d 188 (2 Lyles, 593 F.2d Cir. Jan. (1973), and as act of concealment rele 1979) (quoting United Stirling, States charge vant to the of wilful evasion of — denied, (2 Cir.), F.2d cert. income taxes Count Seven. Barcott v. -, (1978)); 58 L.Ed.2d 116 (9 169 F.2d Corr, see also United States v. 543 F.2d is equally There little merit in the (2 1976); 1052 Cir. United States v. claims of in allowing error the Government Papadakis, Cir.), bring McElroy, to out that Frank Debbie cert. extortion, of one the victims of Ochs’ had prostitute. been a It was her to decision quit profession the oldest that her prejudice” led to We no “substantial find falling default, threats, consequent into Most, all, here. if not on of evidence her return to money Studio One to earn justice the extortion and obstruction of question misjoinder 11. Ochs did raise not of is well-settled this circuit that the “harmless appears, doctrine, under 52(a), F.R.Cr.P. 8. It now applies error” F.R.Cr.P. Halper, See, our recent decision in misjoinder. g., United States v. cases of e. United States cert, 1978), subsequent Turbide, to Cir.), de argument case, nied, in this that if trial court presented misjoin proper been with a Granello, claim of pursuant 8(a), might der to F.R.Cr.P. it have 995 Cir. required grant to been a severance as a matter (1967). Misjoinder Halper, that, of law. In it was held on the facts typically is found harmless where evidence case, joinder of counts of tax evasion tending prove charge to that should have improper fraud Medicaid would be under been severed would nevertheless have been ad 8(a) prejudi F.R.Cr.P. and that the error was missible at severed trial. States Halper cial. We need not determine whether Turbide, 1061; supra, 558 F.2d at applicable be would here. Since Ochs failed Granello, supra, we at 995. Since challenge misjoinder the indictment below for infra, here, any see find that to the case text 8(a), objec under F.R.Cr.P. he waived has misjoinder have been harm error here would 12(b)(2); Moore, tion. F.R.Cr.P. Federal objection. preserved less even if his Ochs had (112.03[2] Furthermore, (1978 ver.). Practice charges the specifically The indictment on the admissible counts endeavoring to count, joinder ‘corruptly’ defendant with of taxes evasion or wit- designated not influence the witness prejudicial was the latter McGrath, not su- nesses. does ‘corruptly’ The word former. See exemption false crime. F.2d at 1106. The add an element to the pra, 558 additional discrete that we sufficiently counts charge any I you as a matter of law spill-over. danger prejudicial see no a wit- endeavor influence unauthorized he have testified on claim that would Ochs’ duty ness in performance of his they exemption if had been counts the false testify endeav- the law. It is the violates the first time in is severed advanced or, gist corruption, not which is and thus need not considered.12 this court the crime. argument insufficiency of offense, Since defines the statute count, also on the extortion the evidence U.S.C. as: § appeal, first borders for the time raised force, or corruptly, Whoever or threats unnecessary go frivolous. It is threatening by any or letter or communi- evidence, communicated in beyond the first intimidate, cation, influence, endeavors through a friend different terms slightly witness, impede any or court McElroy not directly, that if did and then . shall be . . to have a broken head pay up, going “she imprisoned . .” fined ... river.” floating found and be relating claim meritless is Ochs’ Equally why judge said we do understand stipulation entered into between Ochs to a If, sug- what he as the did. Government with the and the Government in connection gests, trying explain he exemption _ stipulation This false claims. lay crime endeavor if it did not in the even “New that an official of a York stated succeed, that language apt was not to during eigh- would that agency” testify previously said: However, end. he period required when Ochs teen-month endeavor, corruptly The must defendant regarding his to make statement marital action, to his deliberately that is residence, status, dependents place of falsely, testify to witness influence the he was gave he no indication that married wit- corruptly have the or to evasively, argues had children. or Ochs that this Fifth Amendment ness assert their [sic] juror might speculate have led a to that the tes- they would privilege when otherwise “agency” prison parole authority, was a or tify. it was. framing stipula- as in fact In challenged immediately after the added tion, the Government and the court went instruction that: them, beyond anything required far of as endeavor, suc- [a]ny . whether . in instructing jury, did the court not, for the cessful which is made danger bring prejudice of Ochs as influencing a wit- purpose corruptly of to zero as was possible. near ness is condemned. charge as regard We therefore do Charge III. of Error in the Claims absence plain error reversal in the requiring Although exception no was taken objection. trial, objects portion to a at the Ochs now to the only objection other charge justice of the on the obstruction charge deserving comment relates count: this, quite points out, aquatic Beyond This threat seems to be vener- as the Government Ochs, able, Kennedy, hardly likely felony with five it is that see United for convictions could have used impeachment, have taken the stand even would exemption trial limited to counts on a and, the false defense, alleged if he had wives and children were available witnesses. whose whole from age vidual life judge tax evasion count. The instructed agreement age contemp- then shown a contrary that in the absence of his of 48 had disregard jail After creditor, serving are tuous law. payments between debtor and parole, on he being sentences and released applied first to be to interest. Ochs con- repeatedly by committing parole violated deprived tends that him of his defense undisputed new crimes. On the record dis- that he believed he was entitled treat pre-sentence report, judge closed repayments legally unenforceable usuri- on given reasonably could have Ochs an even ous until principal loans as a return of higher total he did. sentence than Particu- payments exceeding that sum re- disposition sup- larly of our of the only cover point ceived. At best claim, pression we are not concerned with unreported income. portion small how sentence was structured. urged In view of this and of other factors brief, prejudi- we Government’s find no many other We considered claims cial error. worthy error but do not deem them

discussion.

IV. Attack on the Sentence Affirmed. imposition Ochs contends that MESKILL, Judge (concurring): Circuit years, consecutive terms of three permissible, maximum false the three I today concur the result announced counts, exemption was so irrational and parts II, and in III IV of Judge Friend- consequently such a opinion. manifest abuse dis ly’s power cretion as to be within this court’s Rehnquist Justice Cady observed McCord, correct. See United States v. 466 Dombrowski, F.2d 17 Cir. and cases there cited. He exemptions claims false governing law warrantless searches and sei- $2,500 count; only per amounted to zures, especially involving vehicles, those “is general practice in the Southern Dis something less seamless than a web.” So trict of impose only New York is to sus years serious is the that six confusion after pended sentences and fines such of fairly it can Cady be said the law fenses; impose and that was irrational developing any predict- this area is without what to a nine-year amounted sentence for or ability even discernible direction. War- these minor as with compared offenses a virtually cases rantless vehicle search shed two-year sentence for the more serious which, no on fact situations if one evasion, crime of tax I.R.C. 7201. Ochs § attempt were to the usual apply methods also suggests that the heavy sentence on legal reasoning, of would seem to be distin- the false exemption counts may have been guishable only on the basis of trivialities. due to the having court’s “structured its precedents Thus cast shadows rather sentence to immunize the maximum light, making resolution each than amount of custodial time from reversal succeeding than case less rather more cer- as to the suppression issue .” and tain. Ramos, invokes United States v. years Supreme In the two since the 1978). Cir. held unreasonable warrantless search We disposed are not to use this case to by a agents footlocker removed federal test power respect our limits of with automobile, from trunk of an legal sentences that are within limits and Chadwick, v. States are not upon shown have been based (1977), L.Ed.2d 538 lower feder- materially Judge inaccurate information. al courts have been unable to harmonize Cooper dealing was not with man who approaches of flight bags, their to searches had simply yielded suitcases, to the temptation to and other containers removed See, cheat the by Government of income taxes g., e. from automobiles. the following claiming exemptions false cases, but with an indi- all of which either involved post- I today’s I concur in result but take a search or assumed or held Chad Chadwick by Judge path different that followed from apply retroactively: United States wick law, Judge Friendly. Given the state 1978) Neumann, (8th 585 F.2d 355 Cir. v. rejected Friendly’s analysis as cannot search, on the (post-Chadwick warrantless implausible, although may I think it under- scene, Dayton’s De of closed but unsecured impact estimate the of Chadwick intended vehicle box removed from partment Store prefer exploration I to leave Chambers. occupants, held reasonable after arrest on vehicle effect of Chadwick search, dis investigative inventory either searches, “inventory” whether or “investi- Chadwick); tinguishing United States gative” a case to which Chadwick is (en Stevie, (8th 1978) 582 F.2d 1175 clearly applicable. banc, reversing panel reported decision was handed Shortly after Chadwick filed, (1977)), petition 578 F.2d 204 for cert. down, the decision this Court held that (1978) (pre-Chadwick war 582 F.2d 1175 given effect. not to be retroactive search, scene, investigative rantless on the Reda, (2d 563 F.2d 510 from back of station of suitcase removed cert. unreasonable, Chadwick); wagon citing held See also United States Finnegan, 568 F.2d 637 Diaz, (2d (9th 1977) (pre-Chadwick warrantless on United panel The Reda relied search, scene, investigative on the of closed Peltier, suitcase removed from hatchback of vehicle (1975), Supreme in which the reasonable, citing Maro held Chambers v. of the retroac question Court addressed the 26 L.Ed.2d ney, exclusionary rule deci application tive Chadwick); Peltier Court reasoned that nei (1970), distinguishing sions. The judicial rationale nor the integrity ther the Hill, (D.D. rationale deterrence of misconduct C.1978) (post-Chadwick warrantless inven exclusion of evi justify retroactive search, station, tory open flight officers dence law enforcement seized bag removed from locked trunk of im good faith reasonably believed in who unreasonable, pounded citing vehicle held law, was in accordance their search Chadwick). State, also See Sanders though subsequent even decisions grant Ark. S.W.2d cert. exclusionary have broadened ed, -U.S.-, seized encompass rule to evidence (1978) (pre-Chadwick warrantless date, appeals To three courts manner. search, scene, of suitcase removed Peltier to bar the own have read besides our unreasonable, from trunk of taxicab held application of Chadwick. Unit retroactive Chadwick). citing Clearly, prece when the Choate, 576 F.2d 182 n.20 ed States v. dents in such a crucial area of constitutional - - (9th Cir.), guidance law offer so little it is diffi 350, 58 L.Ed.2d 344 opposite cult to choose results on between 1978); (7th 2 Cir. Berry, v. 571 F.2d superior reasoning, ability the basis of our Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 United States dispense justice severely hampered. is (5th 1977). But see Cir. United States Nevertheless, 1978) (en to decide the obligated Schleis, (8th we are 582 F.2d 1166 Cir. has not banc).1 Supreme Since the Court appeals that come before us. Montgomery, Supreme 558 retroactive. United States In June of 1977 vacated a the Court Reda, (5th 1977); judgment Appeals States v. for the F.2d 311 Cir. United of the Court of cert, denied, Circuit, (2d Eighth involving 435 a 1974 briefcase 563 F.2d 510 Cir. search, 973, for 65 543 F.2d and remanded 56 L.Ed.2d (7th light Berry, Cir. further consideration of Chadwick. United States v. 571 F.2d Choate, 1978); Schleis v. United States v. United 433 U.S. (9th 1978). (1977). I not read the 182 n.20 Cir. See also do Powell, (E.D.Pa. Schleis remand as an indication Chadwick necessarily given decided after is be effect. Each of these cases was retroactive appeals Supreme Schleis case Four courts of held Court remanded the have Chadwick passed (1977) (“Where as of yet retroactivity prop- Chad wick, Reda is law this erty validly of Circuit. Thus is held law enforcement is today impact there no need to assess the may they responsi- officers which of Chadwick on warrantless bility, vehicle gesture, it seems a useless whether it searches, “investigative” either or “invento suitcase, or an automobile to require a ry.” inventory search an warrant to effect of property.”); Diggs, United States v. Putting viewing Chadwick aside and (3d 1976) (Gibbons J., F.2d Cir. search, law as it at stood the time of the I concurring) (“Since agents were lawful- itemizing see no why reason ly box, in possession of the it seems to me contents of briefcase Ochs’ should not be they were authorized make an in- regarded performed having pursu- ventory search. . . principled . No legitimate ant to a inventory search. Three distinction . . can be made for in- years ago, Opperman, Dakota in South ventory purposes search between lawful 428 U.S. possession possession of a ear lawful (1976), the Supreme upheld Court as reason- added; box.”) (emphasis citation omit- the inventory able search of a prop- vehicle ted) (reversed in Diggs, United States v. erly police taken into custody, and the in- 1977) (3d (Gibbons, J.), 569 F.2d 1264 Cir. criminating evidence found the glove unreasonable, holding search on appeal af- compartment was held admissible at trial. remand, ter because found have been case, In the instant the trial court found investigative conducted rather than for that, as Opperman, “vouchering” or inventory purposes); Giles, United States v. invoicing of property coming police into (6th 1976) (warrant- F.2d Cir. custody departmental proce- was standard less inventory luggage search of removed dure the time the search was made. from arrest driv- automobile trunk after simply There was no reason for the officers Zaicek, upheld); er suspect opening warrantless (2d 1975) (warrantless Cir. search Ochs’ briefcase stood on a different consti- headquarters case attache removed footing tutional than the open- warrantless by police from upheld); stolen vehicle seized ing glove compartment or trunk. Soriano, years In the preceding Chadwick several (5th 1974) (en banc) (upholding war- courts of writing appeals both before and search, high- investigative rantless Opperman after to appreciate failed vehicle; way, of taken from distinction, suitcase between containers built into “though it (e. is true that g., vehicles glove compart- trunks and [Chambers] spoke ments) of an automobile while we and removable containers found just treat in or removed from (e. within of containers g., footlockers), vehicles that was one, different”); principle is not subsequently See, drawn by Chadwick. e. g., Gravitt, (5th States v. States v. McCambridge, 551 F.2d cert, (1st 1977) (warrantless search station, (1974) (“when of stolen suitcase taken from automobile, custody any held take reasonable under both sort of container —be it Op- perman and Chambers). automobile, suitcase, thing See also other Friesen, (9th property may stored —it rea- cert, 1976) sonable container to itemize Eighth years Circuit for consideration in Four (which Winkle, Walker, days Chadwick had been decided six after 618, in Linkletter v.

before ordered). remand was But see Unit- Schleis, ed States v. Supreme Court, acting & with the benefit (8th 1978) (viewing n.6 previously expressed conflicting remand as direction views of apply retroactively). Compare Mapp apply Chadwick appeals, six courts held Bannan, which, Winkle v. state like the convic- court convictions (1961), remanding Winkle, Mapp case for consider- final tion in had become before Ohio, Mapp ation was decided. by police”) property to held (cited supra, 428 Opperman,

96 S.Ct. at

Chadwick, distinguishing for Fourth by purposes the intrusiveness of a

Amendment seizure,

search from that of a distin- containers, among

guishing types intro- may in fu-

duces new considerations proper

ture affect our view of the cases

scope inventory both warrantless police custody

searches of vehicles in investigative

warrantless searches vehi- mind, However, my

cles. under

Ochs’ briefcase was reasonable

then-prevailing interpretation of the Fourth Judge Friendly I agree

Amendment. briefcase, having opened lawfully justified seizing officers

clearly incriminating evidence was in

plain view. Under Peltier and Reda it inappropriate exclude evi- up

dence turned in the course of this search. CHUY, Appellant

Don in No. 77-1412

The PHILADELPHIA EAGLES FOOT- (sued Philadelphia

BALL as “The CLUB

Eagles”), Appellant in No. 77-1411 League. Football National 77-1411,

Nos. 77-1412. Appeals,

United States Court of

Third Circuit.

Argued Nov. 6, 1978.

Reargued En Banc Nov.

Decided March

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. George Ochs

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Mar 13, 1979

Citation: 595 F.2d 1247

Docket Number: 453, Docket 78-1163

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.