United States v. Lonnie F. Lampkin

passenger towards while Byrd Brown, Pittsburgh, Pa., R. for inquired flights returning about appellant. day from the New area to Pitts- Atty., Scarlata, Charles F. Asst. burgh. U. S. flight He then boarded the Pittsburgh, Pa., appellee. for Newark, whereupon agents tele- phoned office the Newark Narcot- McLAUGHLIN, Before VAN DUSEN requested ics Bureau and a surveillance ALDISERT, Judges. and Circuit subject. The Newark officers ob- subject served the arrive and followed OPINION OF THE COURT City him to New York lost McLAUGHLIN, GERALD Circuit Harlem, vicinity his trail Judge. (Tran- 149th 10th Street and Avenue script P. The appeal continued This is from an order of the surveillance appellant’s air- denying district court motion port, concentrating plane on the suppress times of appel- taken from evidence arrivals from person New York. At about 5:45 lant’s under circumstances which day, P.M. same ob- probable he contends were not based on served individual who had driven the justify arrest, sufficient morning, Eldorado that Pitts- search, enter subsequent and seizure. terminal with another Three federal narcotics while go person, in- the T.W.A. counter driving towards the quire about the arrival of T.W.A. observed a Eldorado with two Cadillac York, 755 from and then went occupants, proceeding in the same direc- expected Gate 10 where a recognized tion. One one person who arrive. The had been the occupants seen someone whom he had morning in the Cadillac that previously doing undercover while narcot- through joined came Gate the driver ics work area. He companion, pro- and his all and three there- the car He itself. parked headquar- fore an automobile radioed ceeded outside to registration along driveway. approach and ters obtained a vehicle reply approached check stated Eldorado. The followed them belonged stated that the vehicle to Lonnie F. drawn. person appellant so tention of which was un- asked were federal himself, whereupon identify derstood Thus arrested. stated Lampkin. which needs examined his name Lonnie time, con- made searched weapons had been An enve- was before cealed narcotics. containing lope grams of heroin asked his name. 12.89 Lampkin. was found on passing warrantless subsequent problem search, a court involved whether subsequent arrest, sei must moment search, determine whether “at the made, with suf officers zure of narcotics effected satisfy con cause to it —-whether ficient make moment, reasonableness. that and circum stitutional standard of the facts knowledge important As stances and of is most to ascer their to that it within trustworthy proper reasonably tain whether the was which arrest information, were, evident at that were to warrant it facts sufficient peti prudent time, subsequent believing and seizure a search man that the the committing plainly 5 Am.Jur.2d tioner or an would be valid. had been 89, 695, taking, 91, Ohio, 6 arrest as “the v. U.S. defines offense.” Beck 379 detaining person seizing, 223, 225, of an 142 or of the 85 S.Ct. * * * Reviewing may by any (1964). (2) act that indi other make an courts independent facts, him cus of cates an intention to take into examination tody subjects findings, actual and the in order to and that to the record making proba person will of control and determine whether the criteria * * * an ar To met. effect ble cause are rest, Thunderbird, must be or construc Ford 1069 there actual 445 F.2d person (3 tive is seizure or detention of the Cir. therefore essential voluntary arrested, or his submission to to the facts examine which possessed proceeding custody and the must be under relied on and restraint authority. pretended legal There real or and those facts warrant from can is no re no where there to determine whether were suffi be sought straint, person or where cient cause. to establish and be arrested is not re conscious latter varies circumstances * * * arrested straint. If must founded facts sufficient be power independent themselves, an individ understands is he arresting feelings personal submits conse ual’s beliefs. That one or quence, necessary (of arrest) is, it not there be whether at that moment application force, a an manual within actual “the facts circumstances touching body, physical knowledge or a re and of which may eye.” trustworthy reasonably straint visible to be Accordingly, that, un it seems evident themselves to sufficient us, der belief the circumstances ar a man of reasonable caution being rest instant has effectuated at an offense been States, appel drawn, halted committed. Carroll v. lant 69 and informed him of who [45 U.S. S.Ct. (1929).” Brinegar were. At instant he was under the L.Ed. 543] 175-176, control of the officers who had demon 338 U.S. (1949). him into strated an intention take 93 L.Ed. 1879 custody authority govern supra, inferred under their Beck agents. defend- re ment There was absolute mere officer’s previous physical appearance straint abun ant’s enough dantly alone, clear At instant record would not him. ap- In this was an the officers cause. there intent constitute past accompanied by peal than or de- is much more seizure there questionable far and therefore There were association.

criminal “other- many to have factors termed interrelated too illegal.” pure wise had stated coincidence. been the result suspect matter all, the name of didn’t undercover First of former existing facts, occupants would him. Under the one individual, matter itself with arrested car and associated the car name, de- previous no real narcotics work. what his which showed undercover alleged pendence pertinent were that warrant. Other elements appellant’s iden- to one whose arrest was not based auto was wrong- tity previously outstanding warrant, linked with but activities; suspicion those activ- narcot- of federal ful narcotics violation totality ics seemed to center between laws which arose due ities York; suspect’s place and of circumstances which took area; going on June imme- con- interested in an needs to be and that he was 1970. This is all that jour- Appellant’s concerning outward sidered diate return. ney actually in close ended in Harlem arrest determination. also the Unit- See proximity al- run a man to a store ed States Court decision trafficking ready suspected Williams, be- 1972 in Adams June Pittsburgh,

tween New York and L.Ed.2d place return took early day. reason that same A further Appellant Henry cites agent’s police re- for the actions was the 4 L. 80 S.Ct. port (which thought to been is now sustaining (1959) Ed.2d his alle- seemingly erroneous) there was gation probable Henry, cause. existing Lampkin to state concerning the situation arose the theft registered. whom the Consider- car whiskey shipment. an interstate ing factors, all these is obvious observing persons Those be- existing each incident corroborated by cause of a sus- statement one of the agent. too belief of There pect’s containing boss of an information many place” and “fell into factors which nature, supposedly im- undisclosed which probable thus circum- cause such plicated regards suspect in- with to readily stances existent. seems shipments. nev- terstate This statement alleged regards allege war to the er far as to its mak- With went so Warden, rant, Whiteley suspicion in- er had an actual these had thefts. dividuals committed (1971) merely stopped by officials allows law enforcement Those an defendants effecting rely an alley, packages picked up to on radio bulletins some adds, however, away. such if arrest. It drove false, “an other to be bulletins turn out do this never close twice and were illegal enough size, number, be insulated wise cannot con- see challenge by Nonetheless, in packages. the decision from tents of the stigating rely stop fellow offi officer after over- waived the car to a by ration hearing cers make the arrest.” Such some comments evasive apply in might persons proceeded in.question, extended to to search ale is, if the us. That stance as is before the Court the vehicle. Under those facts arrest, rightly probable factor of added held there was no Henry alleged warrant, consid would have been Far excess of the stand, be illegal, particulars it could not a rea- ered the belief informa cause of the mistaken and did form sonable man could have appeal, appeal, un- in this it is clear abundance tion. But this due to the irrespective probable major existed information connected deniable registration suf- auto which was with which was more than checked the drug probable suspected held trafficker ficient to meet the standard of They Lampkin. named cause. drugs Lampkin’s source of one Finally sim is a there somewhat in New somewhere York. opinion, ilar recent gone knew that the car Butler, F.2d Davis & York, proximity close (3 particu 1972) 1194 Cir. its some time store of man who had for mentioned, lar never so facts it was but drug activity suspected decided, “it is doubtful whether Pittsburgh. It between York and possessed by the federal information following Lampkin’s re- all supplemented observa hours turn to a few short suspects, supplied probable tion of the arriving York, together in New after adequate justify a search of the cause flight bag background tight with this pect’s sus- as in invitum.” We most day question, activities on the suredly agree with Fields to the effect arrest, proceeded that judgment with consorting association mere justifiable call that give rise to traffickers does Quite obviously ar- cause. appeal, cause. the solid In this haphazard rest was no venture. developedby com evidence validly distinguishable from Fields. pletely beyond the Fields situation. conclusion There, agents awaiting suspects at other sensibly reached un- cause to arrest was coming off a saw defendants der circumstances. Even the entire plane as be two of them Lampkin, the individual had not been and asso lieved traffickers in narcotics a nature his activities had been of such previous ciated this plainly to call for his arrest as a from an informant who said that illegal drug transporta- connected with Mondays usually individuals returned readily tion. He identified (which was) drugs illegal drug into traffic tied observe sold. continued to which he had conduct course of suspicious ac the three and after some day question. followed tivity stopped them to search a agents bag they Admittedly faced woman whom carried Granting emergency. recognized. major is facts lead with a had not ing specious that, was which distin their information to that confrontation vague guishes merely guesswork, appeal necessi- or ty Fields from this as those prompt for not be used were the facts to Fields action could referred likely as an for arrest. court to insufficient for as excuse a warrantless with that sort In Fields the We are not bothered cause suspicion began problem. agents matter and was in this pro- predicated upon experienced prompt, attention had the movements of the suspects indicating appellant their arrival at the Pitts duced facts after burgh airport. engaged possessed in narcot- Those was an unlawful knowledge suspects They no had time to where the had no ics transaction. happened They just are come rec from. obtain a warrant. Narcotics bench ognize readily disposable generally faces and associate as a known tip recognition commodity this a with an informer’s two and in usually special has men and. a woman returned law section for the narcotics Mondays carrying agents, a with the ille woman allow customs been enacted to mostly charge gal drugs. heading There was which narcotics ap flexibility included, in In this chance and surmise. would be some peal appellant procedure. 7607 had identified 26 their arrest U.S.C. § left; they provides and his car before he 1970 as amended on October 1098 Judge may (dissent- DUSEN, “officers make VAN of the customs Circuit ing). arrests violation warrant relating law the United States majori- respectfully I dissent from drugs (as in to narcotic defined § ty’s conclusion federal 102(16) of the Controlled Substances constitutionally adequate probable had Act) (as or marihuana defined cause to arrest and search 102(15) of the Controlled Substances did at the Air- Greater Act) violation is committed 3, 1970, Terminal June and be- presence person making ar- of a judgment lieve that at least person rest or has reason- where such and sentence conviction should be vacat- grounds person able to believe that ed and the case remanded to the district be arrested has committed or com- findings light court further mitting such violation.” Whiteley Court’s decision in Warden, 401 28 U.S. 91 S.Ct. re-arrival in Pitts- agree (1971). L.Ed.2d 306 I closing was the element majority at was arrested agents’ probable cause. determination agents ap- the instant apprehend no choice but proached him with their drawn and this individual As time. we him, detained before had asked opportunity have seen there name, (cid:127)his and that detention obtain a since simply “stop may and frisk” which easily drugs. disposed justified stringent less judg- Probable our exist. standards, Terry Ohio, see 392 validly ment the arrest made. U.S. 889 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d remaining query One is whether (1968); United States v. 458 F. produced search, or not which (3d Cir., 1972). Thus, 2d possession appellant, heroin in was majority states, Lampkin’s ar- whether reasonable and ar incident lawful constitutionally rest was de- valid will valid, petition When the rest. pend upon whether the record person surroundings er’s and immediate supports district court conclusion right lawfully can be searched. The that at the moment the federal offi- search the incident to arrest al approached Lampkin cers officers “the ways have been coun cause to make it —whether

try England. and in Weeks that moment the facts and circum- 232 U.S. stances within their (1914); L.Ed. 652 trustworthy reasonably Rabinowitz, 56, 60, information, sufficient L.Ed. 653 Since prudent believing peti- man Lampkin’s pocket was found in committing tioner had been valid, lawfully the arrest heroin offense.” Beck v. by agents. discovered and held The 85 142 13 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. suppress accordingly motion to it must (1964).1 be denied. only introduced at evidence judgment pre-trial hearing of the district court suppression conducted January 18, testimony will affirmed. 1971, was the denied, 79, 829, settled that term “reasonable 90 24 L. 396 U.S. S.Ct. 7607, by ; States, (1969) cause” in 26 § U.S.C. cited v. Ed.2d 79 Rocha United majority, substantially equivalent (9th 1967), 2 F.2d n. Cir. 1022 387 “probable denied, the term cause” in the Fourth 88 cert. 390 U.S. S.Ct. g., Draper (1968) ; e. Amendment. See 20 L.Ed.2d 104 States United (E.D. Burruss, F.Supp. 915, 310 n. 358 U.S. (1959) ; Pa.1969). 3 L.Ed.2d 327 Simon, (7th Cir.), F.2d 474 cert. charging appeared on an arrest warrant Sheid, special Agent a of in vio- sale of narcotics Bureau of Narcotics States Drug, Device, Pennsylvania Drugs. Agent lation of Dangerous testi- Sheid “Lonny morning and Cosmetic Act” and that F. of June fied that on the investiga- Lampkin special currently other as he and two department proceeding tion their and was west on Interstate Airport, city of in the known narcotics dealer toward the Greater Pittsburgh, his occu- the fact sus- Cadillac car a 1967 Negro pected supply of in New pied individuals” source “two male airport. City.” proceeding N. York toward the N.T. direct examina- T. 3-4. When asked on registered the vehicle in the When recognized of the either tion whether he Lampkin of Lonnie F. arrived name Agent automobile, occupants two pas- two followed the Sheid declared: senger Lamp- (actually defendant kin) only determined to the to a ticket counter and “I them ex- thought perhaps purchased ticket in the name tent I had that he that I Newark, earlier, McClary prior to that of seen one Gene morning. leaving [d]uring my Jersey, work N.T. . . occasion . got McClary” in Hill 6. After as an undercover “Gene plane, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.” request Pitts- was made District burgh to fol- office to the Newark office N.T. 4. in Newark. low him after arrival Agent however, cross-examination, On agents reported The Newark N.T. 7-8. acknowledged he had never Sheid arriving Agent that after Sheid seen the vehicle Newark, suspect inquired at a ticket (who fact, Lamp- was, in the defendant to Pitts- about a return counter kin) (N.T. his name and did know day went into the and then 16), so it the driver that must have been area, City lost New York “thought” he had the automobile that sight prodding Under him. Ap- perhaps that he “had seen” earlier. acknowledged Agent prosecutor, Sheid parently because of identification the surveillance “thought Agent and the fact Sheid neighborhood “discontinued subject vehicle had seen this [he] place business” Pratt’s residence (N.T. Pittsburgh” Hill District of (N.T. 9), was a “well and that Pratt 4), Agent Sheid radioed large quantities known trafficker registration office of for a the Bureau However, (N.T. there is narcotics” check on the while the fol- car the fact no indication the record (N.T. 4-5). lowed track of the Newark lost reported that the auto- office suspect vicinity of Pratts” was “in the mobile was in the name at the moment known Lampkin. Lonnie N.T. 5. Since Lampkin, is the arrest of Agent familiar of whether time on issue critical Lamp- Joseph Sheid as the surname of a See, there to arrest. kin, nar- whose name was included 1, 21-22, Terry g., e. Of- cotics files of the District Bureau, Agent fice of the ordered Sheid directly indi- Agent not, Sheid City to contact office rectly, informa- indicate that he had this Squad any Narcotics fact, and, prior when tion to arrest pro- additional other asked whether he received 5,17-18. vide. N.T. concerning the defendant airplane the Department Police that his from the time ported, Agent according Sheid, airport ar- that the time he until Agent “Lonny Lampkin him, that testified was the name which F. rested Sheid subject did N.T. Since the district kin he was the of not. state charging absolutely no mention warrant court made with sale opinion (including “currently its 21- of narcotics and was Pratt its findings fact), investigation” paragraph it seems as “a known narcotics city Pittsburgh” learned dealer clear information was in the that “suspected arresting after source of officers narcotics . in New York.” arrest.2 Agent Meanwhile, Sheid remained at I believe that at least the airport in- and obtained Whiteley Court’s recent decision in flights regarding return formation Warden, 11. Later area. N.T. (1971), requires L.Ed.2d 306 this court individ- that afternoon he saw same to remand this case to the district court Lampkin to the air- ual who driven findings for further In White fact. port morning airport enter ley although gen that, the Court held proceed Lampkin to a and meet police pursuant acting eral a officer (not Ford Thunderbird automobile an arrest warrant entitled to assume is to the air- Cadillac had driven that upon that the warrant is based port morning). N.T. As 12-13. cause, if this is not the ease fact ear, began men to enter these justify the warrant cannot an “other approached federal illegal” wise See 401 at Lampkin and arrested both drawn case, 91 S.Ct. 1031. the instant 13, Stipulation companion (N.T. and his acknowledges majority 18, 1971). January Department report Police outstanding then did the federal state arrest What Lampkin Lampkin Lonnie F. narcotics viola know that would have about thought given him tions “is now seemingly erroneous,” at did? but declares that moment controlling Whiteley record in is not “it is case all because indicates appeal, clear in this knew the time of arrest (whom irrespective Lampkin questionable was that existed of the recognize) not driven therefore ” illegal.’ one-day trip City by for a termed to New York ‘otherwise But Negro Department another male individual if the Police re whom agents “thought one a state arrest warrant [he] perhaps “seemingly erroneous,” seen . . . earlier” in discounted “thought possible car which this same think it I would also contemporaneously had seen [he] ... the Hill received Pitts Pittsburgh” Department report District of and which was Police Lampkin “currently in the name of Lonnie F. Lonnie un F. Lampkin, investigation” der name as “a known narcotics city Pittsburgh” familiar to the federal last dealer in the with a “suspected being “suspected of one source of narcotics . trafficker,” “seemingly and that Po- in New York” reported Lamp- lice court, that Lonnie whose erroneous.” The district Testimony Lampkin’s sentencing pro- named Pratt. N. narcotics from someone ceeding acquisition is consistent with the T. 6-7. of this after arrest. At sentencing proceeding Lampkin’s sentencing hearing, Special held on Decem- 3. At 15, 1971, Special Agent Lund, Agent acknowledged ber it was Lund Danger- Lampkin’s suspected Federal Bureau of Narcotics and father who was Drugs, being reputation ous testified that after had a involved cooperated the defendant arrested Bu- narcotics traffic and that reau told them that he had been sent to the best “wasn’t known us knowledge.” purchase father New York of our N.T. 6-7. 23, prudent February on “sufficient to warrant a in decision announced man was believing 1971, petitioner had a month before the Su- that more than preme committing in was an offense.” announced its decision Beck Court 91, Whiteley no made March U.S. findings either the re- as to whether

ports Depart- by Police York, In Sibron New substantially ment true. believe was I (1968), L.Ed.2d 917 re- that least this court should at policeman a Court held that mand district for this case to the court constitutionally could not arrest Sibron findings reports re- as to whether merely the officer saw because Sibron De- ceived from the Police talking to a number known narcotics accurate, partment substantially eight period addicts over a in hours since information I think may circumstances in which narcotics the arrest was “otherwise clear have been A re- transferred. different illegal.” contrary in sult be case would to Si- bron, Lampkin particularly since was However, assuming arresting company never even seen in the of a agents rely the re- entitled (at known narcotics addict trafficker Depart- port of Police most, person’s car), he in such a Lampkin a ment Lonnie F. specific agents no and narcotics had in dealer” “known narcotics Lampkin reason believe had an suspected in source narcotics a taking one-day trip reason for a City, these I believe that York Pittsburgh. may to New York from agents not have did police well be that cases the both Lampkin at the defendant suspicions their because of the aroused time did so. record capacity illegal activity for inherent arrest, veals the time of that at suspects’ But unless the activities. name, Lampkin his asked had been effecting for constitutional standard agents only Lampkin federal knew (as “stop opposed to a and (whom agents recognized or none of the frisk”) is to be relaxed to include mere identified) had been driven to the Pitts- suspicion, do how an I not see arrest can burgh airport one-day trip a justified. be City by that one the un- a man “thought dercover Dicta from recent decision of this [he] perhaps court earlier a car which was United States v. 458 F. seen” (3d 1972), supports Cir., the name of one identified 2d 1194 police “known view that there was no “suspected Lampkin the moment dealer” with at narcotics City,” Fields, special source In narcotics in New York was arrested. and about to driven from the air- Federal Bureau Narcotics and waiting Dangerous Drugs, in a this same man different while Monday, arrest, car. Decem- At the time of embarking pas- had no reason to believe that ber for several sengers McClary, appear, he had who did not not Gene name Negro passen- used three on the to Newark. Officer debarkation of gers, two The men Sheid testified that he men and a woman. assume luggage the woman he arrested carried and car- was Lonnie flight bag. Lampkin (N.T. 2) fact, pocketbook that, ried At placed he would have least one of narcotics under arrest actual- men, ly even Fields if said both McClary Davis, (N.T. persons ille- cir- believed cumstances, gally trafficking possessed the information in narcotics knew report from an informant the time a Bureau reliable) (believed does not seem that Fields fre- arrest of to be safety usually reasonable latitude York and

quently to New went community accompa- are to be Monday by plane welfare returned drugs maintained, particularly so case carried who nied a woman traffic, insidi- kept Davis, is both of narcotics narcotics him. prevent. ous to detect and and difficult surveillance Fields and the woman Judge speaking Thus, Fields, Hastie, togeth- they did not walk noted that court, fact, the narcot- and, declared speak to one another er or intentionally privilege, indeed a re- had a ics appeared to be the woman stop sponsibility, and his wom- Fields avoiding After Davis. with contact question them companion in order to Fields waited Davis bag. flight But to examine the ask terminal the entrance to the Judge declaration followed parking Hastie attend- minutes while about 30 following caution: got waited The woman ants car. nearby, apparently ill at nervous ruling, not do sanction “In we so ' communicating ease, not but stopping way condone the finally arrived. ear When the Fields. merely harassing persons because side and driver’s Fields walked rep- records bad have criminal passenger’s the woman walked utations.” point At this the federal door. 458 F.2d at stopped asked the woman and Fields and Lampkin’s arrest under believe that I bag. woman what was her presented circumstances bag responded that be- The woman violation of record constituted longed immediately ex- who reverse and would Amendment Fourth claimed that it was not his. judgment conviction. flight bag to look into the asked him, obliged by extending and she maintaining although not it was

hers. circumstances,

In de- Court

clared that is doubtful whether “[i]t possessed by supplemented by their observa- INTERNATIONAL, INC. BEEFY KING suspects, supplied probable tion of the Corporation, Plaintiffs- and IEA justify a search Appellants, bag (458 in invitum” F.2d at If there was not cause to arrest al., Defendants- et VEIGLE Francis T. suspects in Fields and search Appellees. flight bag, prob- there was not fortiori 71-3475. No. able cause to arrest the offi- cers did in the instant In Fields case. Appeals, States Court agents stopped the narcotics an individu- Fifth Circuit. al suspect- who was known to July behaving suspi- ed narcotics trafficker ciously acting consistently with a

reliably reported operandi. modus contrast, case,

the instant the narcot- ics arrested an individual whom before, had never seen or heard specific unusual,

whose actions were not acting

and who consistent any specific operandi modus characteris- enterprise. recog-

tic of a criminal I nize, course, local and federal given

law enforcement officials must be

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Lonnie F. Lampkin

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Jun 27, 1972

Citation: 464 F.2d 1093

Docket Number: 72-1066

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.