United States v. Penny Porter

рaid to Matteson. the funds were claim that here. application its then principle And, they not. fact is were simple The court, in the law versed well The trial apply. not Lubash does its Island, opinion about and whose Rhode Wood, 426 U.S. Bishop v. respect, we law court is judgment The 2077-79, 345-47, Affirmed. Board v. Nashua Rose (1st Cir. Education, 679 F.2d from distinguish Travis 1982), not could we. Nor can present case. argument rests second Matteson’s Co. v. Insurance Fund

upon Fireman’s (1962) 311,186

Lubash, A.2d 722 R.I. — a holding statute that the ease Rhode Island indemnity from to obtain the carrier

allows from the victim. but not wrongdoer America, Appellee, UNITED STATES victim, Lubash, paid the wrоngdoer, The the vic carrier sued compensating payment. directly to recover tim PORTER, Penny Appellant. car court, gave the noting that the statute No. 82-5203. per indemnity “to from right rier the damages [i.e., the pay Appeals, so liable States Court of son no authorization wrongdoer],” found Fourth Circuit. against victim. the carrier’s suit Argued Dec. 1983. argument upon the Matteson’s founders July Decided 1984. here, that, sought fact the carrier to obtain Certiorari Denied Nov. 1984. wrongdoer, from indemnity See 105 As soon as Matteson sued the Matteson. (Condon), wrongdoer notified Travelers Condon,

Matteson, every other rele- party that it entitled to whatever

vant Matteson, pay up to the

Condon would compensation Matte-

amount of workmen’s notifying letters are

son had received. unequivocal.

clear The settlement

check was made out to Traveler’s counsel pro- well Its as to Matteson’s counsel. placed

ceeds in escrow because Matte- argued

son’s counsel that Lombardi de-

prived any right indemnity. Travelers ‍‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‍circumstances, district

Under these correctly

court found that Matteson did not money; money

receive came from placed in presum-

Condon and was escrow

ably Tra- until it was determined whether receive

velers Matteson was entitled to wrongdoer’s damage payment. There counsel, having

is no basis for Matteson’s place the

enticed Traveler’s counsel to jointly

funds in a escrow ac- contracted interest, they

count then to so could earn informant, Saturday, a anonymous

An on the Federal February telephoned (FAA) police Aviation Administration re- Washington Airport, National and was Dawley, ferred to Detective John a Wash- D.C., Depart- ington, Metropolitan Police (MPD) assigned to the air- ment detective port Special Deputy Marshall on as a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Dawley Task Force. had been years, had detective for eleven been assigned squad, MPD narcotics had several of narcotics-related weeks training, sixty and had testified more than expert times as an narcotics cases. The Dawley Penny informant that one Por- told taking flight ter or had taken a Airport Miami from National at seven or night nine re- o’clock that and would be turning quantity with a of cocaine. informant Porter as a described Miss black height, woman 5' 3" and 5' 7" in between weighing pounds, and hav- between 115 hair, ing long wearing evening brown a brown leather coat and a red miniskirt outfit, carrying large gold-colored and in- purse. gave The informant also other record, formation, not detailed in the con- cerning other than Miss Porter. someone Air- Dawley night checked Eastern flight Airport at National lines rosters Alexandria, Va., Brown, ap- for E. Blair Miami noted that a “T. Porter” had left for pellant. evening. flight on an Eastern He also Otis, Atty., Alexan- G. Asst. U.S. William the informant’s information cheeked out Munsell, (Elsie Atty., Al- dria, L. Va. Porter and that did not concern Miss found Va., brief), exandria, appellee. for it correct. WINTER, Judge, Chief RUS- Before following days, February 21 and two PHILLIPS, WIDENER, HALL, SELL, 22, Dawley flights, monitored Eastern ob- SPROUSE, MURNAGHAN, ERVIN serving passengers disembarking from sev- CHAPMAN, Judges, sitting en Circuit flights arriving eight en or Eastern February banc. the same infor- Miami. On again called and advised him mant WIDENER, Judge: Circuit Porter) (Miss that this was to arrive watching While sometime that afternoon. appeals her conviction Penny Porter flight 190 from Mi- passengers on Eastern intent to distrib- of cocaine with possession p.m., plane § at about 3:30 ami leave 841(a)(1). of 21 U.S.C. ute in violation the manifest for having without checked no that there was only contention is Her a woman flight, observed this and that the cause for her arrest probable description matched what “physical whose un- luggage her search of warrantless wearing a given” I had been and who was judg- disagree, and affirm the lawful. wearing brown leather coat. She was also ment of conviction. shoes, floppy- accompany a dark the bath- high-heel jeans, black licewoman carrying hat, room, sergeant and was FAA sunglasses, and asked the desk luggage; red minis- policewoman come the office. piece carry-on gold-colored purse were kirt outfit seated near the door Miss Porter was one of the This woman was not evident. her for FAA office. asked plane. leave the She passengers last identification, go- began and she additional turning attention attracted Dawley through carry-on bag. her stood the looking him as he and the if if mind he looked asked she would area, him con- watching passenger waiting Dawley not did mind. bag; she said she the cause- tinuously she walked down counter, sides bag the felt the put the shoulder, walking her way, looking over bag “for bag, and into the the looked rapidly, appearing nervous. and put his he not type weapon,” but did Dawley approached the woman bag. Detective into then hands the detective gеneral proceeded to after she had accompany Miss to him asked Porter govern- displayed office, He his passenger area. be- approximately fifty DEA feet he office, told her that was ment and credentials of the FAA yond front desk investigating office, nar- was DEA and with she inside the DEA did. Once “if she He asked would brought cotics traffic. Dawley Porter if she had asked me,” re- she speaking mind to which respond- anything from Miami. She back mind. He asked if plied that didn’t she ed, [meaning she I little “all is a smoke have by airplane; said that just had she arrived not me marijuana], you’re going to lock but coming was that, had. He asked where she she up you?” produced She answered, from; He “Miami.” then she en- pocket rear a small manila her left boarding pass, which she asked for her containing proved mari- velope what to be produced the name “T. and which bore Dawley responded af- cigarettes. juana name, her and she re- Porter.” He asked firmatively question placed her to her and sponded, Porter.” “Teresa Only arrest. fifteen minutes under off passed stepped Porter had since Miss Dawley Miss Porter point, At that asked plane. office, to DEA him accоmpany to Dawley Detective advised Miss Porter police office housed in the FAA rights her and asked she Miranda whether not in uniform airport. Dawley, who was rights; she that she officers, understood these said accompanied by other and was not expressed law- and no desire to see a her, did and there is no evidence did touch warrant, he yer. Without a then searched he he Miss Porter that was that advised carry-on bag. gold purse; He found her a (we was), he or exhibited a armed assume wrapped purse a red miniskirt firearm, in the was any show of otherwise made or bag containing plastic a what Por- around authority. Dawley testified that Miss cocaine, apparent out with an turned to be accompanied “voluntarily me ... back ter $60,000.00. The retail value of about and that he would have let to the office” is as to whether Miss Porter him; record silent accompany go refused her had she carried the into the DEA she was did not indicate to free At office, office. the time arrest the way to the DEA to leave. On reach within arm’s of Miss Porter go to that she “had to Miss Porter said Porter, Dawley and Miss who was bad,” between Dawley told her that bathroom near window. After another seated office they DEA she once arrived warning, sever- Miss Porter made company Miranda in the go the bathroom could indicating before inculpatory al statements Miss Porter and policewoman. Before lawyer. she wanted to see through some feet then walked trial, sup- moved Miss Porter concourse, steps, down a series of airport seized, the cocaine pressed FAA through a tunnel motion. It denied the po- the district court office. was unable to locate son we will not disturb such a found that the detective’s initial encounter determina- tion it clеarly unless proper Terry under erroneous. with Miss Porter was States v. Gooding, 695 Ohio, F.2d at 82. (1968), that Miss Porter went clearly We do not find erroneous voluntarily, to the DEA office and that the finding court’s that Detective justified warrantless search was as incident Dawley’s initial contact with marijuana. the arrest for airport passenger area Terry stop.1 was a engages in a factual de- court A district The detective had requisite reasonable, resolving dispute over termination suspicion articulable activity criminal police and between nature of an encounter so detain Miss Porter and ask for identifi citizen, Gooding, see United States cation. An tip provide informant’s can Cir.1982). say, (4th That is to F.2d justification for a Terry stop even if the voluntary on the the encounter whether reliability unknown, informant’s and cer no constitu- citizen and raises part of the tainly if, here, can do so as the information 460 Royer, concerns, v. Florida see tional corroborated, a matter discussed more 1319, 1324, L.Ed.2d 75 491, 103 S.Ct. U.S. fully below. Gorin, See United States v. (1983) opinion); United (plurality 229 159, (4th 564 F.2d Cir.1977), 160-61 cert. 544, 552, Mendenhall, 446 U.S. States denied, 1080, 434 1276, 98 S.Ct. 55 (1980) 497 64 L.Ed.2d 100 S.Ct. (1978). Stewart, Ohio, J.); 392 (opinion Terry v. 1868, 16, We need not 1, 16, n. determine whether the 19 n. 88 S.Ct. district finding court’s a limited that Porter whether wеnt voluntarily to the DEA office Terry clearly under was “seizure” has occurred purposes For reasonable, opin erroneous.2 Ohio, our requiring a articulable ion, we assume that Miss Porter was activity, under suspicion of criminal Reid Geor- 2753, arrest 2752, after she was during identified 100 S.Ct. gia, stop, (1980) curiam); Terry because (per even at that 65 L.Ed.2d 890 point probable the detective had requiring cause for a traditional whether cause, an arrest based on the rea- informant’s informa- probable has occurred. For this majority Supreme agents permitted 1. A Court has not de in fact have would not Here, questioning persons cided whether mere of an individu to leave. the detective's detained can, more, police testimony permitted al official without would Miss that he provided a amount to a seizure under the Fourth Amend Porter to leave basis for Immigration finding even more substantial than that Service court’s ment. Naturalization — 1758, course, U.S. -, -, Delgado, in Corbin and Mendenhall. Of if Miss Likewise, office, 1761, (1984). voluntarily to the DEA her 80 L.Ed.2d 247 we need Porter went marijuana case that no seizure oc that she had some certain- not determine this statement Dawley initially ly provided probable Detective asked cause for her arrest. curred when however, Porter, recognize, questions Miss because he had the there is some necessary argument may objective justification that what have be- to conduct what force to the stop voluntary Terry stop. gun Terry Porter’s at most a as a and Miss was accompaniment the DEA of the detective to of- noted, panel 2. A of this court has have been transformed into an fice well agents told Miss Porter that "Several courts have held that ‍‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‍re arrest when the detective coercion, only go compa- quest, suspeсts stopped restroom without she could public places accompany ny policewoman. them to an office or of a noted, investiga Supreme recently place has more convenient for an As the Court other Corbin, 1066, a, initially F.2d consensual encounter between tion.” United States an Cir.1981), (4th citing a citizen can be trans- United States v. officer and Chat man, 565, (9th Cir.1977); a seizure or detention within F.2d formed into Amendment, "if, Oates, Cir.1977). (2d meaning Fourth States v. 560 F.2d Corbin, surrounding the of all the circumstances 662 F.2d at 1071 & n. and in view In incident, Mendenhall, person would have be- a reasonable United States v. 446 U.S. at 574-75 J., (White, was not free to leave.” lieved that he & n. 1887-88 & n. 13 Immigration Sеrvice v. Del dissenting), findings accompany of consent Naturalization — -, U.S. -, gado, agents airport upheld DEA to an office (citation (1984) omitted). though 80 L.Ed.2d 247 even the trial courts had found that ar- through agent probable the detective’s had cause tion, narcotics corroborated hav- agent Detective observed whom and observation. rest a man investigation characteristics, every physical fact particular as true confirmed Dawley had carrying a tan clothing, in- supplied. wearing particular had that the informant a train which Penny bag, alighting was from zipper said that formant had place, and arriving particular Miami from National from a had left for leaving or predicted night, February walking pace, at a Saturday fast all Airport on flight informant the informant a man about confirmed Draper, peddling had taken an narcotics. Porter” said was a “T. roster that agent informa- given of National flight Miami out the informant had Eastern always agent had evening. police experi- previously His tion Airport that generally Id. at people accurate and reliable. taught him found ence had re- names, Supreme 331. In the Court’s to their own use aliases similar “T. Por- of informants reasonably expression use believed cent thus cause, has de- provide probable the informant the Court Penny Porter ter” that, veracity of infor- given had an The informant while had clared described. person, determining highly relevant in information about another mant is only verified, working report, it is most of an informant’s also value a.m.) (until “totality of circum- do so. The night one element of determining the given description approach of Miss stances” informant “commonsense, practical question” wheth- physical characteristics Porter’s dress, v. probable watchеd over er there is cause. Illinois for which 213, recognized Gates, 2317, days he 462 2327- period and which of two (1983). In 28, off of Eastern 527 Gates Miss Porter walked 76 L.Ed.2d when Monday, February tip 22. letter was flight anonymous on The in an 190 detailed large degree by police called had back Febru- to a informant even corroborated observation, person question investigation providing in ary report 22 to that and afternoon, very an ar- probable issuance of would arrive that cause Dawley’s drug traf- suspected two she did. observations rest warrant for course here, tip plane left the also indi- like Miss аs she The details of Porter fickers. carefully Gates, he Draper she the one for whom in and cated that was those searching; was of the last investi- she one corroborated Detective was observation, plane, ap- Dawley found gation and she and passengers leave nervous, quickly, peared walked in a identical to that of himself situation continuously proceeded agent Draper, him as she the Court said watched who every general passenger personally area.3 facet of “had verified boarding pass him finally given confirmed from information [the informant] stopped the “T. petitioner accomplished he was had person except that whether searching. had his had the ... heroin on Porter” for whom been his mission and person bag.” Draper his United point, at detective at least that if not 313, States, At at 79 S.Ct. at 333. before, probable arrest had cause to Miss produced Miss at the time least The facts which the detective cor- Porter. therefore, boarding pass, the detective virtually indistinguisha- roborated here are her. probable to arrest cause States, Draper those in ble from v. United court, regard- 307, 329, agreе 358 U.S. S.Ct. 3 L.Ed.2d at Miss Porter’s (1959). point Draper, the Court found that a less 2753-54; Harrison, characteristics, S.Ct. at States recognize these often 3. We Here, course, F.2d what detec- profile, drug in the DEA's courier common supplemented tive observed other information standing provide alone cannot sufficient reason- able, already to him. known suspicion justify Terry even to articulable 440-41, stop. Georgia, Reid occurred, that the warrant- exception in fact arrest of that search rationale bag in the DEA carry-on applicable of her in this case. less search to the arrest. аs incident office was lawful according- judgment of conviction is argues that The defendant ly Detective exclusive control of within the AFFIRMED. arrest, that there were no Dawley after her circumstances, and therefore that a exigent MURNAGHAN, Judge, Circuit dissent- Dawley to necessary for warrant was ing: argument fails for bag. This search the concluding join majority I cannot First, Supreme Court has reasons. two of Porter’s the warrantless search argument. rejected the New specifically carry-on bag in the DEA office was lawful 5, Belton, 461-62 n. 453 U.S. York v. join I as incident to the arrest. Nor can 5,n. 69 L.Ed.2d 768 2864-65 decision to ex- majority’s unfortunate (1981). has established a The Court Belton, ‍‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‍454,101 453 U.S. tend New York v. rule, 463-72, 101 “bright-line” see id. at (1981) 69 L.Ed.2d 768 to control J., (Brennan, dissenting), S.Ct. at 2865-70 fundamentally setting a factual distinct justifies a custodial arrest that a lawful that case. I from the circumstances of contemporaneous search without warrant dissent. respectfully therefore immediately arrested area, surrounding id. at While it is true that the search in Belton (citing California, 395 U.S. Chimel upheld as a search incident to a lawful permissible and not as a Litman, (1969)); United States exception,” under the “automobile (4th Cir.1984) (en banc). F.2d 137 Miss 462-3, 2865-6, n. 101 S.Ct. at n. arrested, lawfully Porter had been abundаntly Court made clear that its deci- undisputed it applied specifically to “a custo- sion Supreme was within her reach.4 The Court occupant dial arrest of the of an automo- rejected suggestion has that more need Id. at 101 S.Ct. at 2864. The bile.” litigated, particular, the issue of opinion begins with: court’s supporting the whether one of the reasons occupant an When the of automobile is exception is search-incident-to-arrest arrest, subjected to a custodial lawful Belton, New York v. 453 U.S. at present. constitutionally permissible does 2863, 459, citing 101 S.Ct. at United States scope of a incident to his arrest Robinson, 414 U.S. 94 S.Ct. passenger compartment of include the 477, (1973). 467, 427 We also riding? in he was the automobile which that the was within do not believe question at issue in the That Dawley. of Detective control exclusive present case. of was within reach Miss Again, 455, at 2861. The court Porter, within it was easi- Id. at 101 S.Ct. evidence opinion designed to primary A rationale of the reiterated that its ly accessible. straightforward rule for “the exception provide a search-incident-to-arrest proper scope of a search of question is that the arrestee requirement incident to a destroy evi- the interior of an automobile attempt to conceal or to occupants.” at custodial arrest of its dence, California, 395 U.S. lawful Chimel 459, And the 2040, 101 S.Ct. at 2863. 763, and we think Id. 89 S.Ct. at necessary holding reemphasized that its deci- inquiry court’s if such an even away minutes before to an FBI field office 30 have been ar Miss Porter 4. The fact that McEachern, being United States way searched. to the DEA office on the rested Here, 618, Cir.1982). (4th only 15 675 F.2d 622 is irrelevant. after she arrived there searched passed Miss Porter between the time minutes upheld, as a search incident bag was plane and the time her left arrestee evеn of items within the reach of the driven searched. where the had been arrested and 628 marijuana, and had picion possession of particular factual very related

sion separate spot in a required each stand setting: one of highway while he searched police- hold that when a Accordingly, we in presence automobile them. custodial arrest made man has con- inherently raised such circumstances automobile, occupant an [foot- light of the fact exigency cerns of contempora- may, as note omitted] fleeting since opрortunity “the to search arrest, search the of that neous incident readily movable.” car is Chambers of that automo- compartment passenger 1975, 51, 42, 90 S.Ct. Maroney, bile. omitted]. [footnote 1981, (1970). L.Ed.2d 419 also Car- See 460, at 2864. Id. 132, States, 267 U.S. roll v. United 280, L.Ed. v. Unit- Brinegar that its court also warned But the Belton 160, 1302, States, ed more than determine holding “no did (1949). L.Ed. 1879 California, 395 meaning of [Chimel dictates, course, sense Common motor- questions involving searches of particular and (1969)] in this things can- readily cars or other moved way It in no alters context. problematic questions identical to not be treated as principles established the fundamental arising out of of fixed struc- searches scope regarding the basic ease the Chimel tures like houses. ar- to lawful custodial searches incident 460, n. States, rests.” 453 U.S. v. United Preston establishes an n. That Belton 366, 84 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d permitting rule circumscribed absolute but (1964).1 set of cases certain defined searches in a Belton, therefore, provides no new highway is no involving on the automobiles guidelines for a search incident to a lawful treated in an searches be mandate that apart arrest in a context from an automo wholly fashion in different equally absolute Instead, merely highway stop. bile Belton circumstances. principle that in reaffirms fundamental many cases such warrantless searches short, as it was Belton, was decided weapons justified “... the need to seize the events occurred simply because things might used to and other automobiles but because an automobile escape, as an officer or effect an assault or, particularly, the more vehicle generally, prevent well destruc need case, characteris- possessed certain in that things tion of evidence of crime— the rule enun- application of leading tics easily weapon or might happen where the ciated. person is on accused’s or un evidence Indeed, explaining critical der his immediate control.” facts Preston States, predica- supra, outcome in Belton relate to the at 883; Belton, supra, ment of lone officer York v. who S.Ct. New 457-58, automobile, 2862-63; stopped highway on the an con- 453 U.S. at 101 S.Ct. at California, supra, taining occupants. The 395 U.S. four officer had Chimel “However, automobile, pulled speeding legiti- over the 89 S.Ct. warrant luggage property of or mately occupants its four searches other arrested on sus- less particularly 49-50, 1. Preston is relevant here Maroney, supra, since Chambers U.S. at California, Cooper's reading 1980-1981. of Pre Cooper [i]n S.Ct. [87 (1967), only point exigen ston reinforces the that the 730] omit [footnote dealing primari cies attendant to an automobile are the Court read Preston as search of ted] importance regardless ly excep critical with a search incident to arrest and cited ultimately provides ‍‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‍proposition mobility upholding tion that case for the that the basis for may warrantless of a make search. car the searсh of car without a warrant reasonable.... “wingspan” differently from that of seized at the time of an arrest cannot be arrestee himself or justified Weapons herself. incident to that arrest if or either clothing contraband concealed in the the ‘search is remote in or on place time or arrest,’ the body Preston v. of an arrestee remain United States ... accessible or no exigency exists.” United States v. they arrestee unless and until Chadwick, 1, 15, physically confiscated and removed from contrast, (1977) his or her reach. In there is an (emphasis 53 L.Ed.2d 538 sup- plied). range entire might of situations which concerning objects arguably

arise within an arrestee’s “area of control” which would plain make principles Such necessarily not merit identical treatment. argument that a government’s sweeping guided by We therefore must be the lack of any and all searches legitimizes arrest valid governing absolutes searches an arres- area, surrounding of the arrestee and tee’s “wingspan” high- outside the Belton circumstances, is regardless other context, way stop requirement by the law, ill-advised. unfounded both strictly all searches by “be circumscribed Robinson, 414 U.S. United States еxigencies justify initia- [their] (1973), L.Ed.2d 427 Ohio, tion,” Terry v. 1, 26, 392 U.S. reaffirma prefaced opinion its with a court 1868, 1882, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 a search of the distinction between tion of Hayden, Warden v. person, a search of the an arrestee’s (1967), his or her control. area within by the facts of the instant case. a search It is well settled that incident excep- to a arrest is a traditional lawful exigency readily ap- The lack of here requirement tion to the warrant per- parent. Aside from law enforcement general excep- Fourth Amendment. This sonnel, airport po- Porter was alone historically tion has been- formulated into search, the time of the lice station at propositions. The two distinct first standing companions at the side of a person that a made be contrary, Dawley, on the highway. of the arrestee virtue of the lawful The room in which not alone and unaided. arrest. The second is that a search merely part one he and Porter were was made of the area within the control of station, airport police the arrestee. attempts find testimony concerning his ladies’ to take Porter to the room an escort of this Court’s decisions Examination officers that at least two other showed propositions these two shows time. the station at that staffed quite differently. The va- treated

been incident lidity of the search of possibility There was no that the arrest- regarded as to a arrest has been endangering officer would be himself enunciation, and has settled from its first risking or the loss of evidence deferring unchallenged virtually until the remained search of the until a warrant had validity of the second present case. They been obtained. already at the conceded in proposition, while likewise police station, transportаtion so lapse no differing subject principle, has been of necessary get time was to Porter and of the interpretations as to the extent bag place security. Dawley the to a of may be searched. area which weapons harbored no fear of hidden in the (emphasis in Id. 94 S.Ct. at 471 bag; previously he himself had checked the original). bag specifically weapons for and had satis- none, fied and sensible reasons himself that it contained and he There are rational suppression hearing testified at the treating of an arrestee’s that he for the search in- justify he searched the can the the only when evidence search cocaine sought stant case. bag time.2 a second the respect, disagree I With due arguments foregoing demonstrate The eliminate or majority’s apparent decision to by possi- the exigency was created that no to exigency justify the for eviscerate need present. weapons Nor bility that instant and in others the search the ‍‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌​​​‌​‍case justified by here be the the search flatly decision of like nature. Such a protect exigency the need to created Supreme long the line of Court contradicts evidence or contraband from destruction. cases, including itself, explicit- that Belton Although conceivably such a concern nonconsensual, ly limits warrantless Dawley’s motivation behind have been the countervailing searches to where situations search,3 the requirement the search be Far exigency paramount. concerns of “wingspan” confined to the arrestee’s still jealously protecting society’s con- from our California, remains force. Chimel majority adopts a privacy, cerns for the supra, 89 S.Ct. at 2040. inevitably course that will lead the fur- testimony concerning the location only right. of ther erosion such basic bag the of the time of search at the majority inaugurated has an ill-advised suppression at the issue was from path of journey down the erosion. Instead hearing, who defendant testified “[t]he proper prece- it is and in accordance with airport the window in was seated near of dents to hold that Porter’s bag office and the was located between her place in violation of Fourth took “[wjithin myself” that Porter was con- Amendment strictures without her bag. arm’s reach” of ruling I sent. therefore would reverse thе incomplete, testimony Dawley’s court, But and, I accordingly, of the district or if he indicate when does since nowhere must dissent. bag to Porter between returned weapons and search for the initial time of say me Judge WINTER authorizes district search. The post-arrest the later opinion. in this that he concurs point. finding Given

judge made no of Daw- of the remainder the level detail possession when his

ley’s testimony, earlier search, his

he made consensual asking for describes he nowhere

fact that her, it it taking bag again or Porter’s conclusion that he escape

is difficult bag for several possession

inwas plac- responsible for and was

minutes arm’s reach” bag “within

ing light arguably occurred. facts, majority strains

of the above by concluding that the

meaning of Chimel or destruction

fear of concealment suppression He substance. asserted hear- Indeed, both- apparently never 2. since placed "after under she prior carry of Porter herself a search ered to out looking substance I was for was cocaine.” bag, subsequent searching he could is not Whether feared its destruction overly that Porter concerned not have been record, although it is destroy established hard injure or to either him would seek imagine availability how the cocaine as evi- evidence. adversely delay be dence could affected entail, Dawley certainly looking procurement for cocaine would anonymous since his informant had led him to once the was within control. transporting believe that Porter would

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Penny Porter

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 5, 1984

Citation: 738 F.2d 622

Docket Number: 82-5203

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.