United States v. Joseph A. Chadwick

COFFIN, Before Judge, Chief CAMP BELL, Circuit Judge, THOMSEN,* Senior District Judge.

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Judge. Circuit The United States has appealed under 18 3731 from U.S.C. § district al- court’s lowance motions to suppress evidence. Chadwick, Machado, Leary, following May their arrest on were indicted possession for marijuana with intent conspiracy. 21 U.S.C. and for distribute 841(a)(1) and 846. §§ trial, Prior to their suppress moved to evidence of mari- juana seized from a footlocker, two suitcas- es person, and Chadwick’s and Chadwick’s while custody. remarks After an eviden- tiary hearing, the district court ruled favor, defendants’ F.Supp. 763, and it amplified reaffirmed and rulings its after hearing the Government’s motion for recon- sideration. Id. 773. This appeal fol- lowed.

* Maryland, sitting by designation. the District of From to see was but unable telephone call arrests of defendants’ The circumstances overhear dialed or was described number searches subsequent saw Christopher also Agent Christopher conversation. G. Richard federal by from was as it removed LaVoie, assigned both L. Paul cart, and car, baggage on a placed baggage Enforcement Law Drug Abuse Office area, it was where Walsh, the station police offi- in to by Robert taken (ODALE), compan- a female May Machado On Railroad. claimed Central for Penn cer placed Leary. They to LaVoie relayed ion, identified was later 1973,information magazine an abandoned Die- near office in San the floor it on ODALE from Boston Agent it. Christo- trunk or brown down California, an old and sat stand go, couple marijuana, open. trunk to contain footlocker, saw suspected never pher to Boston two suitcases. them California en route also Diego had San office The train. Amtrak Duke, brought them had agents The official, who an Amtrak by off tipped been con- to sniff out dog, trained a detector contained footlocker that the suspected handler walked Duke’s substances. trolled leaking talcum it was because marijuana Leary and by Machado leash his on him up the used to cover material a powder, then Christopher told Agent times. several substances, because and of controlled odor near foot- the Duke to release the handler size, almost its for weight unusual its locker to the went locker, whereupon Duke appearance The pounds. hundred two scratching response” “alert an gave and footlocker, identi- the shipping person the a con- he detected indicating that it, by Amt- Machado, profile used fit a as fied The handler inside. substance trolled The drug traffickers. spot to officials rak however, instructed, to have Duke not been Scituate, in address Machado’s bore tag suitcases, immediately so and the smell also ticketing in- According to Massachusetts. footlocker, picked he to the alert the after another accompanied formation, was he of the Duke out walked leash and Duke’s up Leary. identified later person building. and the both Machado Descriptions of for the time a was first seen Chadwick the Boston to transmitted were termi walking into the later minutes few would the train who learned agents Leary to Machado and over He came nal. May 10. evening of the Boston in arrive in a conversation engaged three the and tenth, the the and eighth the Between the then left terminal1 Chadwick moment. warrants, arrest no search sought street a where outside went and the investigating. When continued but Polara, to have been found later Dodge Haven, Connecti- New through passed train Leary and rented, parked. Machado was Boston, Amtrak in its cut, arrival prior transport physically cap who a red engaged compartment baggage checked officials to the car where out ed the footlocker still on was the footlocker verified waiting. Leary climbed was Chadwick testified Christopher Agent board. seat, of the putting one passenger front justify sufficient was suspicion “the compartment. passenger inside suitcases at South energy of men expenditure into the loaded cap red offi- law enforcement six Station,” so Macha- help with the Dodge of the trunk 6:50 Station at South gathered were cials Chadwick, cap doing most of red do and train. to await May 10 m. on p. placed suitcase was The other lifting. m., approximately p. at 8:50 finally arrived the footlock Dodge with of the trunk in A minutes few schedule. behind hour one er. suspect a spotted Christopher later, Agent cap red was clear as the soon As the ter- description inside fitting Machado’s lid was closed the trunk vehicle, before amake Machado saw Christopher minal. Christopher’s ever, Agent testi- clear from three “en- that the found court The district alone, terminal mony left the Chadwick all after which gaged brief conversation in Machado, Leary, luggage. porter.” How- before awith railroad the station left engine started, ear the federal I asked why him he was all the way closed arrested trio. It was then down here Salem, New Hampshire? about 9:15. Machado and Chadwick were he And said that Mr. Machado had called standing at the vehicle; back of the Leary him. was seated in the front seat. The two He asked me how I knew what was in males were quickly frisked and all three the trunk. And I told him that he had it were handcuffed. guns No or weapons wrong; I asked questions. any were found on of them. Keys to the I asked him how he knew what was in receipts footlocker and and documents of trunk, and he didn’t answer. He said ownership were Machado, found on but no he didn’t know what was in the trunk. keys or were documents found on Chadwick I asked him what his phone number so him link to the footlocker. A key was. was found Chadwick’sperson, of which a He said he didn’t have a phone. duplicate or similar type was found in Then I asked him how he get Leary’s possession; it was believed to be a call from Mr. Machado? safe deposit key, box key. trunk He said that everything that he I said They all then government taken twisting, he didn’t care to an- vehicles, Chadwick and Machado in one and any swer questions.” more Leary another, to the John F. Kennedy Chadwick said nothing further. After Building (JFK). they Dodge The Polara was JFK, arrived at Agent Christopher put seized for the purpose of forfeiture because Chadwick through routine booking of its use to informa- facilitate the transportation of tion. Miranda warnings were repeated marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § One of the there was further conversation: agents drove it JFK to time, at the same “I took routine the booking footlocker and suitcases information— still inside. name, address, and so Subsequent on. Agent Christo- testified, pher the At that was time Mr. under his Chadwick stated that lived, control all he at times. No I think it accomplices was 100 Riverway in suspected or to known be in Brookline or near the area. Boston. I don’t recall if it was Brookline or not. JFK, En to route a five minute trip, again I asked him for his phone num- Officer Walsh to read Chadwick and Ma- ber at that address. He said he had no chado their rights. Miranda Agent Christo- phone. repeated pher warnings and asked I asked him how he point got phone Chadwick by point if he call understood Mr. from Machado. He rights those said and that he he could received waive those it the phone rights. a friend who Chadwick lived in acknowledged that he apartment above him understood that he at 100 could waive River- them. He way, that would be requested was not the third to floor apart- execute a waiver and ment. there is no evidence that he did so. Macha- do give refused to I his And I name or believe asked answer him any how he knew questions. There to was be at phone then particular brief ex-

change Agent between time to receive a I Christopher call. don’t believe he Agent Chadwick. As responded to Christopher that question. recounted the conversation: I don’t think there were any other questions “I asked the other than booking Mr. defendant Chadwick information name,

his gave asked of he him.” it to me. I asked the defendant A Machado small quantity his of marijuana was found name, he refused to answer. person. Chadwick’s I then asked Mr. Chadwick how it came The footlocker and suitcases were taken to be he he was—where was from? into ODALE office at JFK within min- said, Salem, And he New Hampshire. utes prisoners’ arrival. The footlock- 778 padlock 2022, 2031, 564, 29 was double-locked S.Ct. (1971);

er 575 latch, trunk first regular Watson, 411, States v. U.S. they when removed from 828, 599, noticed S.Ct. opened JFK. It was Dodge Polara at (1976)(Powell, U.S.L.W. agents, using office J., burden, ODALE The concurring). moreover, “is Machado, sometime found on between keys seeking the exemption on those to show large quantity m. p. and 11:00 A 9:30 Jeffers, for v. need it.” United States Agent found inside. Chris- marijuana was 48, 51, 93, 95, L.Ed. delayed that the search was topher testified because there were they reached JFK

until theAt first many suppression hearing, on the street at South people too sought justify was The the Government the arrest made. the war- when Station brought into the rantless search of were also under the two suitcases inventory pursuant exception. so-called automobile office Chambers ODALE regula- Maroney, Administration 399 U.S. Drug Enforcement S.Ct. suspect did (1970); The L.Ed.2d 419 Carroll tions. v. United marijuana. Both suitcases were contained 69 L.Ed. locked; claimed White, defendants Texas none see keys, permission ownership produced sought was not open the suitcases argued that as vehicle itself could have agent any them. warrant,

obtained without a been searched so also open. Marijua- suitcases charge broke the footlocker, part of its contents. inventory No list inside both. was found na Tramunti, See United States evidence, was contents offered of their (2d Cir. pre- one evidence that was there nor Soriano, (5th F.2d 1974)(en pared. banc). court, But the district quoting Cool Hampshire, supra, v. New idge 403 at U.S. were ever secured for No search warrants 461-62, 2035, at 91 29 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d at 580 the or the suitcases. footlocker either J.), to the (Stewart, effect that word “[t]he is not a in pres ‘automobile’ talisman whose of Footlocker Search Warrantless the Fourth Amendment away ence fades search The warrantless footlocker disappears,” held that “there no was or the ODALE office an hour was made at the search nexus between and the automo the after defendants were arrested and so bile, merely pointed a coincidence.” out At the time of the seized. footlocker had monitored the progress that the search, proba had without the doubt porter as they and defendants moved a cause there was controlled to believe ble from the station the vehi the not, however, They did therein. substance just cle. The arrest seizure occurred The question, a warrant. possess search had been deposited after therefore, their is whether warrantless trunk. The parked car’s trunk lid was exceptions within one of the search fits open, yet the driver was not still at requirement of a war the constitutional wheel, not yet and the motor had been said, rant, for, Supreme Court as the has the circumstances,” started. “Under said judicial outside the “searches conducted court, floor “the automobile prior approval judge without process, nothing platform was more than a trunk under per are se unreasonable magistrate, place for resting the footlocker.” We Amendment—subject only to a Fourth No reason comes to agree. why mind specifically established well-deline few States, placement footlocker’s car trunk Katz v. exceptions.” United ated 357, any 347, 507, 514, 19 should make more if 88 S.Ct. searchable than 389 U.S. 576, (1967), quoted Coolidge arrest occurred in the 585 station area. L.Ed.2d 443, 454-55, 91 Hampshire, Coolidge Hampshire, New 403 U.S. v. New supra. See petitioning the Upon Chimel, district court (2) the footlocker was reconsideration, no Government within defendants’ control at the time of longer pressed exception, the automobile arrest, even under Chimel. present theory,

but rather turned its As to point, the first the Government a warrantless of the footlocker search stresses that Chimel involved the search of to the permitted “incident” arrest of its house, points to language in Weeks v. (Machado),2 and that owner such a search States, 383, United 232 U.S. S.Ct. was therefore lawful when conducted a (1914), L.Ed. 652 and in this court’s decision at the short time later ODALE office. See DeLeo, 487, 492 Edwards, 800, 803, States v. U.S. (1st Cir.), 1234, 1237, 94 S.Ct. S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d 648 (1970), as evi (1974) (“searches and seizures that could be dencing special concern for the sanctity of made on the at the time of spot may arrest home; consequently, it argues, legally be conducted later when the accused stringent standards enunciated in Chimel detention”). at the place arrives But see applicable only are to a search of a dwell 364, 367, Preston v. United 376 U.S. ing. The Government would have us test 881, 883, 11 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. legality of a warrantless search incident The district court found the Govern- to an arrest outside of a dwelling under a ment’s new theory unpersuasive. The court standard “reasonableness.” that the held footlocker could not have been searched incident to the arrest as it was However, formulation, Chimel then outside the area of defendants’ imme- limiting an incident-to-arrest search to the diate control. The court relied on Chimel v. person to the area within the arrestee’s California, control, recently has been repeated with (1969), which a war- restricts approval in a case that did not involve a rantless search incident to an arrest search. building Robinson, States v. person arrestee’s and the area “within his 218, 225-26, control,” immediate meaning “the area L.Ed.2d Nor is its ration might gain from within he possession ale, to prevent access to weapons and de a weapon or destructible evidence.” Id. evidence, structible suited only to houses. at at applied Courts have it in situations analo “double-locked, The court that a found 200 gous to this. See United States pound container” that had already been Rothman, 492 F.2d (9th placed open in the trunk of the automobile 1973); United Colbert, States v. 454 F.2d at the time of the arrest was not an “area (5th 1972), 801 Cir. rev’d on other grounds, control”; within his immediate and as the (1973) (en 474 F.2d 174 banc). And, of justified search of the could not locker be as course, the fourth amendment itself is not a search incident to the arrest had taken dwellings.3 See, limited to e. g., United place contemporaneously arrest, with the Leeuwen, States v. Van 397 249, U.S. 90 illegal the later search was a fortiori. 393 1029, 25 (1970) (first-class S.Ct. F.Supp. at & n. 4. 375 search); mail Rios v. States, United 364 The (1) 253, Government now contends 1431, 80 U.S. S.Ct. 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 the district erred relying court in (1960) search). (package 2. Machado not does contest the lawfulness of right people “The of the to be secure in arrest, his and we have no doubt houses, persons, papers, effects, their and cause to him arrest against seizures, unreasonable searches and could do so without an arrest United warrant. violated, shall not be and no Warrants shall Watson, States v. 423 U.S. issue, upon probable cause, supported but (1976); 46 L.Ed.2d 44 U.S.L.W. 4112 see affirmation, particularly or Oath describ- Race, (1st Cir., United States v. 529 F.2d 12 ing searched, place persons to be and the 1976). things to be seized.” provides: 3. The fourth amendment 780 “ and, cases, . relevant, . .In all lug- find of these we Chimel

Thus indeed, gage being of no decision the Su that was searched carried we know is relevant to the at the time ar- that more the defendant of his Court preme Moreover, may be presented lug- here.4 rest. that hand-carried situation arrest investigatory gage encompassed phrase in the of criminal is ‘area the area least, has control.’ Supreme Court within his immediate But the searches any retreat from the in this case was not signalled hand- clearly ” luggage. warrantless be . . . searches carried requirement exceptions”— “well-delineated confined to below, Since the decision this circuit has exception. Katz v. arrest Unit as the such a warrantless search upheld also of a hand- States, requirement, That cou supra. ed arrest, at the scene of carried briefcase rejection in explicit Court’s with the pled arrestee was after the handcuffed and guidelines pre more of the flexible Chimel Eatherton, v. custody. United States 519 era, see, g., e. vailing pre-Chimel (1975). However, F.2d we must Rabinowitz, v. States United agree the district court that there is a (1950), rules our 94 L.Ed. out S.Ct. difference between considerable items such proposed “rea the Government’s adopting as hand-carried Eatherton’s briefcase question be approach. sonableness” objects the footlocker here. Portable simply whether the search falls us fore is zipper bags, hand such briefcases particular ex within the boundaries suitcases, fit without too small much diffi ception. culty Chimel’s “immediate control” size, Their accessibility, standard. Chimel,we find no error in Applying liken portability “personal all them to ef decision that footlock lower court’s on an person, fects” found arrestee’s such an area within arrestee’s was not er cigarette clothing package in one’s holding, In so the dis control. immediate may lawfully pocket, which be searched rejected the Government’s at court trict without a warrant as incident an arrest. analogize the search to tempt Robinson, supra; United See States Unit briefcases other of hand-carried Edwards, supra. ed States To exclude of which various courts luggage, searches such can create “gossamer searches of items Draper v. United See approved. have arresting thin” distinctions officers 358 U.S. S.Ct. impracticable, could find if not impossible, Buckhanon, (1959); States v. United follow; and, justification where (8th Cir. great to a depends search extent on the (9th Maynard, F.2d States judgments arresting which the reasonable Mehciz, 437 F.2d 1971); United States v. have at the officers could made time of denied, (9th Cir.), cert. v. Robinson, supra, see United States 29 L.Ed.2d 139 appear those distinctions would unwarrant Mancusi, ex rel. Muhammad ed. Cir.), (2d F.2d 1046 However, pound a two hundred footlock- said, court It is quite The district er different. difficult to liken course, is, say might that Su- people 4. This of not to be feared that would be arrested preme might never relax the “immediate Court on in to search technicalities order all their area, by baggage test in search control” reinterpretation position belongings. We take no on the matter it or otherwise. But would be event, feel, any revisions but in that of this sort perhaps presumption, speculation, for even high are left to the Court. best assuming change. to such a Even us that initiate greater flexibility is desirable to accommo- setting, Judge 5. In another Chief Coffin has contraband, it is debatable date searches for “personal as a described a briefcase effect” exception be the arrest would the best whether clearly either that “does not fall within the accomplish this. See infra. The vehicle to personal a search or a search of the realm of premises.” require probable exception does arrest not Micheli, v. United States search, if the mere fact arrest cause to 1973). (1st Cir. search, baggage an unlimited it were to allow bag and to a hand-carried this It will be remembered that in Chambers meaningful sense that the foot say any in supra, the Maroney, v. Court reaffirmed an contents, its or, importantly, more locker exception, first established announced in control. immediate defendants’ were under States, supra, v. United allowing Carroll heavy and too portable, from was far search of a moving warrantless vehicle average person. by the be carried even to probable had which officers cause to believe knew, just well also, as It had The rationale held contraband. for the baggage a train’s car exception unloaded been and Chambers was the Carroll suggesting, as cross-country trip that vehicle would escape after likelihood be- case, tightly that it was could be secured. fore a warrant Chambers to be proved step further allowing took Carroll opened; not be nor did and could secured on-the-spot immediate only an search but a open before observe police search, warrantless station later see no it. We thus basis opened themselves since, reasoned, the Court immobilization of that, finding court’s for disturbing the for a warrant the vehicle until could be secured standard, “this foot of the Chimel purposes necessarily a lesser intrusion was not than a not within the control of simply locker search, 51-52, warrantless U.S. at at the time of arrest.”6 defendants 1981, 26 L.Ed.2d at 428. S.Ct. at noted, While, aá we understand the Admittedly baggage goods in the search-in relying to be Government present some of the same transit character exception, part argu of its cident-to-arrest immobilized, istics as automobiles. Unless may looking that it also be suggests ment may disappear such items before a warrant luggage direction of liberalized obtained, (a and immobilization step in approved rules several other cir search courts, ourselves, including most will These, arising in an arrest while cuits. cause), is permit, given arguably just as context, heavily upon the rationale draw as a But annoying to the owner search. exception the automobile search underlying theory, can be said for this we do whatever Maroney, supra. in Chambers v. it has that received sufficient not believe Mehciz, supra; States States Supreme Court outside recognition Wilson, (8th Cir., Oct. No. area, generally, for us to the automobile Buckhanon, supra; United States v. exception a valid to the recognize it as Johnson, F.2d see requirement. warrant fourth amendment (2d 1972), & n. 8 automobiles, predated yet Carroll Baggage baggage do not mention progeny its category comparable to vehicles. a separate question appar The courts would noted, exceptions already we have As the warrantless search ently lug allow “specially have been termed rule warrant upon for contraband the individual gage “well-delineated”. United established” determination of cause.7 officer’s Katz, supra.8 The would-be ex- say bulky scope exception, even a and basis for the novel 6.This is not 7. The if, Chambers, barely example, analogy beyond be such an area are could never for arresting any spelled there was reason officers to the cited cases. One to out that the arrestee immediate access believe to its contents. hesitate follow such cases is that we reason findings princi- The district court’s they present clear view of no course, score, are, of entitled to much applied. this ples be weight. recently has underscored this holding 8. Justice Powell the footlocker search was not In not, stating exception, proposition, is no more “[t]here we do within the arrest indicate, question validity rule the Fourth Amend- basic constitutional dissent would any get ques- than that which makes a nor do we ment area warrantless Machado’s except unduly delayed. ‘jealously in a unreasonable few whether the search was search tion of beyond carefully exceptional simply drawn’ the footlocker was circumstanc- We hold that 411, Watson, U.S. searchable without control” that is v. the “area of States 820, es.” 611, 598, 829, 427, 46 L.Ed.2d to an arrest. a warrant incident see United Johnson, States ception question hardly descrip- fits that 10, 333 U.S. tion. And we cannot be sure that the intru- 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. searching an item baggage sion of is no The Government does argue not greater detaining than it. As to there was. The first-class that district court found mail, Supreme Court has held that it footlocker “was not in is imminent or Leeuwen, v. Van States potential danger even greater. being destroyed or Doubtless, supra. Certainly spirited away.” exception such an the agents power to detain the impact, premises have considerable as its tempo rarily at their office or might apply only baggage seem to not otherwise until a procured. warrant could be See United mail, express packages, moving but to Brignoni-Ponee, description. Chambers freight of all The 878- 2574, 2578-2581, exception L.Ed.2d automobile search itself is of a United States v. Van Leeu broader character than somewhat other ex- wen, supra, at not, S.Ct. at ceptions; example, does require 285; Terry Ohio, L.Ed.2d at 392 U.S. accompanying arrest. The fourth 1, 16-19, 1868, 1877, 88 S.Ct. “something amendment is less than a seam- (1968).9 But they empowered not web,” Cady Dombrowski, less 413 U.S. to search it. 433, 440, 2523, 2527, 37 L.Ed.2d applicable Standards to one We affirm the district sup- court’s order particular exception may not be readily pressing the contents of the locker. translatable into another. If an exception of this character is to be translated to an Warrantless Search of the Suitcases entirely objects, different class of we think The Government does argue not Supreme Court should make the judg- breaking open the two locked suitcases and ment. them, searching were acting pur- suant to the search-incident-to-arrest excep- We are agree, constrained to there tion. The district court specifically found fore, with the district court that the war- that the suitcases were outside defendants’ rantless search of the footlocker did not fall arrest, control at the time of and we agree. any recognized within exception gen requirement, eral warrant and that there The argues only Government regula fore the search was in violation of the Drug tions of the Enforcement Administrat fourth amendment. We would add that ion,10 interpreted by the agency, “man special there was no exigency justifying complete date a inventory personal of the warrantless search under the circumstances, belongings of the person,” arrested and that (1976) (concurring), U.S.L.W. quot- would exist under normal fourth amendment ing 493, 499, Jones v. United principles. 1253, 1257, 78 S.Ct. (1958). quite This rule is different from the Manual, Agents 6662.25. Collection ánd fl expansive principles applicable more rantless to war- Handling Property: Personal Other arrests, which, g., police e. allow a property non-evidentiary Personal value solely officer to arrest cause and which is found in a seized automobile will be handled as outlined in ¶]6654.23. without warrant someone who has commit- felony. ted a Id. Manual, Agents 6654.23. ¶ Seizure Proce- dures: given power by 9. Government are stat- Upon vehicle, seizing thoroughly it must be contraband, ute to seize out 21 U.S.C. 881. With- § performed pursuant searched. A search to civ- deciding statutory authority how this mesh- contemporaneous il seizure need not be with an require- es with the fourth amendment warrant necessary. and no search warrant see, exceptions, g., ment and its e. 21 U.S.C. Remove all 881(b)(1), articles from the agents’ power vehicle which are § detain it reinforces the part baggage temporarily. vehicle itself. least contend, however, property Government does not Personal vehicle should be re- agents’ powers gave person under 21 U.S.C. 881 turned to § the owner or the from whom any greater authority them seized, to search than receipt the vehicle was and a obtained.

78Q U.S. regulations such was rea- with compliance (1971). in violation of the fourth and not

sonable to The district court found amendment. agree We generally with the ap the reasons ad- contrary. It considered the proach taken in Lawson and find no reason inventory safeguarding for the vanced — the findings to overturn below. This is not property, insulating the personal arrestee’s dispute to the propriety of reasonable in later claims of theft or lost from agents ventory procedures designed to safeguard safety institutional then property, —and effects; clothing personal and if in the found, of such good course reasonable faith efforts these considerations is available “None of an officer stumbles across incriminating ev inventory as searches the justify to idence, the evidence will not be suppressed. suitcases. It is breaking into these sim- Dombrowski, ; Cady supra See Fagundes closed, suggest to that a credible ply not States, v. United (1st a threat to the insti- posed suitcase locked Cir. cf. Cabbler v. Superintendent, ... No more credi- safety. tutional (4th 1975). 528 F.2d 1142 just But theory . . . is the ble designation such, because of its an inven necessary protect search was tory is not immune from the fourth amend claims of theft or lost agents from later Lawson, ment. supra, difficult to see how the property. It is 471-72. We see an inventory as occupying agents safeguarded by is integrity of a middle between ground a criminal investi the lock to a suitcase. Such forci- picking search, gatory which must comply strictly more, invite entry likely would rather ble with warrant and standards, cause fewer, Breaking claims of theft. than and those actions which fall totally outside (the open description the suitcases used See, g., the fourth amendment. e. Harris v. testified) agent who was an unrea- States, supra; Fagundes v. United and, therefore, unacceptable ap- sonable States, supra. Like the search of a code proach problem.” inspector, inventory may be initiated and Supreme attempted Court has not upon carried on a less formal basis than a generally the define conditions upheld criminal search and will be long so inventory searches are consistent with the governmental proper purpose as it serves a amendment. Harris v. fourth See does not amount to an excessive intru Municipal Court, sion. Cf. Camara inquiring In 523, 87 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 930 of the Government’s actions reasonableness reasonableness, (1967). The test case, weighing privacy rights in this when, here, dispute, there is a all the against defendants of the Government’s must be examined. We facts intimate no did, doing interest what the court as to the judgment propriety inventory approach suitcases, eighth followed circuit nor ing unlocked even locked ones Lawson, reasons, in United States 487 F.2d 468 sufficient such as given suspicion (1973), courts, may explosives California see there be State inside. But Superior breaking open Mozzetti v. Court of the two Sacramento locked suitcases here County, Cal.Rptr. 4 Cal.3d unreasonable intrusion 484 was an that exceed approach governmental That any proper P.2d 84 is somewhat interest shown ed pointed out, variance with the tenor of decisions in As the court below to exist. claims, protect the fifth circuit which tend to validate later inventory procedures unless could have been tape “routine” suitcases sealed with initialled, carried bad particularly shown to be out which the have See, Kelehar, e. g., placed faith. United States v. in a locked storeroom with keys envelope along Lip kept 470 F.2d 176 United States v. in an per other scomb, (1970), property 435 F.2d 795 defendants. Forcing sonal apparent purpose other than suspected no Association with known or locks served crimi curiosity.11 agent’s not, satisfy itself, does in and to nals of establish probable States, cause. Sibron v. United of Chadwick’s Suppression Conversation 40, 1889, 88 S.Ct. 392 U.S. 20 L.Ed.2d 917 n Agent with DiRe, 581, v. (1968); United States 332 U.S. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). 68 S.Ct. In a case suppressed court Chadwick’s The district were the facts similar where but even more response Agent Christo- made remarks guilt, the ninth indicative circuit found a few minutes after Chad- questions pher’s cause to arrest. probable no United being Chadwick was then States arrest. wick’s Loo, arresting (1973). 478 F.2d 401 officers to the v. Jit Sun See driven Linnear, He had been advised of his v. office. also United States 464 F.2d 355 ODALE found, but, rights, 1972); as the court (9th Bazinet, Miranda United Cir. States v. testified, Agent Christopher himself (8th 1972), 462 F.2d 982 Cir. he expressly indicated that waived his 1010, 453, 409 U.S. S.Ct. 34 L.Ed.2d 303.

rights, by signing a form or otherwise. The argues The Government (1) that be found that Chadwick’s arrest was

court probable momentarily “possessed” cause Chadwick illegal (2) for lack of cause and footlocker, knowing his responses that his “tainted” involvement in illegal point, marijuana arrest. On last the court offenses can be inferred proven that the Government had not found possession. from his United States v. Phil knowing voluntary a abandonment of (5th lips, 1974); 496 F.2d 1395 Cir. rights, particularly was inter- Bonham, Chadwick (3rd v. Cir. rogated within few short minutes after Palmer, 151 U.S. being illegally Relying Wong arrested. 317, 467 F.2d App.D.C. (1972); People v. States, 471, v. United S.Ct. Sun Reisman, 278, 29 N.Y.2d 342, 327 N.Y.S.2d (1963), 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 it found the cus- (1971); People Nettles, N.E.2d 396 interrogation inherently to be coer- todial 306, (1961), Ill .2d 178 N.E.2d 361 cert. de lawfully “even as to one who is cive nied, 369 U.S. 82 S.Ct. 8 L.Ed.2d 12 and even more so “where the custody,” that, The district court found at the illegal.” initial arrest is time of Chadwick in fact exercised no “dominion or control” over the footlock probable whether there was On er. His contact “was less than that of a Chadwick, agree we cause to arrest may This porter.” be an overstatement: that there was not. That the district court put car, footlocker was and the at the station meet the arrived Chadwick infer agents could that Chadwick was the putting and assisted in other defendants although driver of the car suspicious ap car was Chadwick’s footlocker in his rented on the scene pearance had been being entirely short of “sufficient but fell somewhat Still, unexpected. Chadwick’s prudent believing possessory man in to warrant slight was so interest one petitioner fairly had committed or was com cannot knowledge of the Ohio, Beck infer contents mitting an offense.” 379 U.S. from that Leary 13 L.Ed.2d 142 fact. See 395 U.S. been, 1532, 1548, have could as the district Chadwick found, Wigmore court a friend or relative who knew cf. 9 on Evidence § 1940).12 nothing (3d of the contents of footlocker. ed. at 288 stances, the court per- was entitled to entertain The court also found that defendant’s 11. breaking doubts as to the motive behind open sought mission to the suitcases was not the suitcases. picked, although Agent the locks were before Christopher testified that none of them claimed Race, (1st United States v. Cf. 529 F.2d 12 inventory ownership. an Nor was list ever 1976) (sole possession consignee regulations offered to defendants. The relied reasonably crate believed to contain contra- also, best, ambiguous as to the au- on are probable band held sufficient to establish cause thority for such actions. Under the circum- arrest). were not themselves voluntary, see Escobe that the contends Government Illinois, do v. 490 n. rely also cause 1758, 1765, (1964), agent, noses. An to be policeman’s their requirement” the “threshold of admissibili sorts, certain sure, and from expert ty. 422 U.S. at S.Ct. at may meaning able to derive he be facts at finding L.Ed.2d 427. This was perhaps inexperienced elude an untrained or would compelled not in the circumstances, but it thing it is one to credit an But person. clearly was not erroneous. Leavitt v. How interpretation adequate skilled agent’s ard, 992, 996 (1st Cir.), 462 F.2d facts, agent’s to credit sus another the 34 L.Ed.2d 140 agent because the is an picions simply together, Taken the findings court’s are Good hunches the foundation of agent. to a supported amount determination that work, they good police probable but are not product the admissions were not a of “free Government, by cited The ease the cause. required will” as under Wong Sun and Kancso, (3d States v. Illinois, supra, Brown v. at at S.Ct. others, 1958), and v. Da 2261, 45 at 426. L.Ed.2d We necessarily vis, 147 458 F.2d 819 U.S.App.D.C. much reliance in these place matters the on Craven, 442 F.2d 418 (1972) Ortiz sense, “learning, good courage fairness and 1971), presented all a factual basis (9th Cir. judges.” federal trial Nardone v. United which trained observer could rea 338, 342, 266, 268, S.Ct. sonably suspect that had com believe 84 L.Ed. committing an offense. We mitted was ruling below that the arrest was affirm Affirmed.

illegal. THOMSEN, (con- Senior District Judge We also affirm the court’s exclu curring dissenting): Wong remarks. Sun sion Chadwick’s agree I that there was no justi- sufficient reaffirmed Brown v. Illi recently was fication arrest Chadwick Leary, or Ms. nois, 45 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. that statements Chadwick made after (1975), while the scarcely latter properly suppressed, his arrest were questions all Wong answers left after justification there that was no opening Sun, plain warnings it makes Miranda Leary’s Ms. suitcase or Machado’s suitcase do validate alone admissions secured they opened; when as and but I re- following Here, illegal arrest. as the dissent from that spectfully portion of the found, district court admissions were which holds that opinion opening the foot- fewa short minutes after the made building locker in JFK violated Macha- against militating admissibility, factor id. rights. Fourth Amendment do’s at at S.Ct. L.Ed.2d at 426. which agents The information had weighing true that in the is train received before the arrived in South is the favor relative innocu Government’s justified suspicion their Station agents the arrest: while the ousness (a contained large footlocker contraband that they proba have known lacked

should marijuana). Duke, quantity of After cause, they good suspect had ble reason dog, to sniff detector trained out controlled Chadwick, and there no evidence that substances, gave response”, an “alert acted in faith. the error was they bad Still probable had cause to believe that infraction, not a mere technical such contraband; the footlocker contained Justice Powell described his concurrence probable cause to also believe that Ma- Illinois, rely Brown v. on when officers chado, who had traveled the same train warrant Id. at later invalidated. with the and had claimed it when Further at 432. was from the it unloaded train and was more, the court district found that Chad it, sitting was committing then a felony effectively did not waive his Miranda wick presence. They might in their have arrest- rights, consequently his admissions Watson, United States then, footlocker or other container Machado ed he has - U.S. -, probable cause to believe is being used to and did not lose that (1976), presence L.W. commit offense in his and to Machado caused the waiting until right seize the contraband therein.1 in the trunk of the placed to be I believe that automobile. and searched the footlocker have seized

also station, dog gave after the the af ground on the signal, there

firmative cause to believe that con being and was used in contraband

tained

committing the offense. This conclusion is Buckhanon, by supported Georgios KOLIOS, Petitioner, Ioannis United (8 States 1079 Cir. F.2d Johnson, (2 cert. 1972), 467 F.2d 630 Cir. denied, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZA- 93 S.Ct. SERVICE, Respondent. TION L.Ed.2d States v. Meh No. 75-1264. ciz, (9 Cir.), Court Appeals, First Circuit. station, A railroad after the arrival of a Argued Oct. 1975. train, good place is not a to conduct such an Decided March 1976. search, especially arrest when the agents did not know whether one or more might respond to telephone

men call had made.

Machado Nor is a street outside good place a open

the station a footlocker marijuana.

containing The acted

wisely arresting car, in Machado at the postponing until arrived at JFK footlocker,

opening the to confirm the fact it contained contraband. If it had contraband, to contain

proved not should and presumably would have immediately. Machado

released He was delay opening hurt the foot-

locker. thorough review of Fourth Amend in the majority opinion

ment cases herein through the thicket which

illustrates state judges, federal as well as state and officers, enforcement law must

federal

struggle in cases such as this. I believe justify cases cited above the con principles control the

clusion to arrest of an officer without a war

right committing felony who is a person a

rant public place in a should also presence

his open suitcase, officer

permit property of a house or No invasion other real was involved in this case.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Joseph A. Chadwick

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Mar 29, 1976

Citation: 532 F.2d 773

Docket Number: 75-1165

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.