*1 224 investigation. Mc- See the
iar with Carthy States, supra, 394 U.S. v. United 472,
at
pointed by appellant. this for King, R. S. Mr. Warren Asst. U. Atty., A. Thomas with whom Messrs. Terry, Flannery, Atty., A. U. S. and John brief, Atty., Asst. S. on the for U. were appellee. UNITED of STATES America WRIGHT, and v. Before McGOWAN Judges. MacKINNON, Circuit Raymond MORRIS, Appellant. No. 23513. PER CURIAM: Appeals, United Statеs Court of appeal for This from a conviction of District Circuit. Columbia (22 carrying pistol a without a licensе Argued 25, Sept. ques 1970. 3204) only the D.C.Code raises § admissibility pistol as of the tion the of 20, Decided Nov. 1970. against suppress. pretrial a motion to subject evi
That motion dentiary of an was the hearing, which at the close of by cоurt ruled that the action taken the Terry police proper v. was under the Ohio, 1, 1868, 20 L. 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct. (1968) the Ed.2d 889 case which —a сourt, words, interpreted in as hold its authority to ing police that “the had the pat question and the man involved tо protection.” him for their own down difficulty interpre is this Our tation, not with ambiguity in but rather with an testimony pre as to this is the cisely whether police did. what the gun police found the The officer who person he appellant’s thаt on testified by special at had advised a officer been Trailways lat- the Bus that the Station in a res- a man ter had been told that MacKinnon, Judge, dissented Circuit gun. a the had taurant across street opinion. and filed sрecial awas The hanger-on officer’s informant With about bus station. the information, inside went this the officer tеstimony to as the restaurant.1 His happened is as follows thereafter what relating he (after in which a false start spe- brought out a the first man whom man): wrong cial was the officer said “ * * * in and I then went back So brought him and I told Mr. Mоrris out restaurant, were accompanied but the outside street mained across the 1. He was gun present the was found. special when by latter’s the and officer the persons re- Both these of informant.
225 ambiguity clоaked or had to believe he was in confusion. The that we reason gun, testimony carrying purporting I searched him. of an to a and officer Terry he he did a act under clear- time told me have should elicited At this bе ly gun, out, purpose and it and I removed a conscious to relate with blurted long right theory. pocket aс- of his fact to Because was not coat that from his complished grey H and R in in a manner a calibre this instance overcoat .32 exactly pistol to rounds in the which enables us be certain of three live with haрpened, for what we remand the case same.” supplementary inquiry evidentiary a and of If, the court’s characterization as by ruling a the such for court after new upon Terry implies, limitations there are provided. has clarification been scope be the search which can the of detention, Terry a thеn incident to made It is so ordered. say impossible this it to from testimo- is exceeded, ny they and were whether MаcKINNON, Judge (dissent- Circuit gun In the the discovered whether was ing) : process full-scale an and of unlimited appellаnt’s person, or as a con- search of my opinion It is that the officer had pat sequence protective of a down. probable appellant cause to detain for search, it the nature of the Whatever interrogation purposes search of and testimony pre- appears to from this have just pat down) af- (not a on the based by appellant. ceded the admission made allegation рersonal firmative on asserted course, may, in- It that the of have been knowledge personal direсt observa- and pat the admis- itiation of a down evoked by previously tion a citizen who was say for cеrtain sion. we cannot What supported officer known to the and who meagre the record is whether from this standing ap- by by his accusation while limitations search exceeded the which being pellant detained, and was searched rightly regarded insepara- as the court by v. Rios arrested the officer. See holding. Terry blе from the 253, 262, States, 80 364 United U.S. (1960); argued by 1431, that It the Government L.Ed.2d is S.Ct. 4 1688 probable Terry 1, in Ohio, cause to arrest there was 392 88 S.Ct. v. U.S. accordingly, appel- Young any event, that, 1868, (1968); and L.Ed.2d 20 889 States, legally subject 333, v. United U.S.App.D.C. to full-scale 140 lant was But upon apprehension.2 (1970). his search 435 And was 405 there F.2d testify nothing charge that ar- did he the officer not about the levied stale probable appellant of appellant. on the rested basis at situation Such factual instead, account, comports bring Aguilar cause. His not does the case within theory temporary оf investi- Texas, with the a 108, 113, v. 378 U.S. 84 S.Ct. by Terry. gative 1509, (1964) detention validated 12 other L.Ed.2d 723 and by fact the out the that involving This is borne casеs informers” “unidentified testimony not did hearsay heard the court which or information. ruling ground to incident its on a search throughout To me the officer’s conduct upon probable the cause but arrest on entirely was reаsonable. officers can- If Terry rationale. instantaneously posi- not act under such Terry policе impor- with by clothed the by tive claims a citizen who stands authority, think it de- and we they powerless tant new protect then are to the public. its initial exercises not be that sirable I would affirm. argument Appellant (1964).
2. point this on has resisted We do not reach the since reliability ground of the by that the the it on was not ruled the District adequаtely Court, remanding not es- informant has been in and we are the case citing Spinelli States, tablished, any ruling United v. a event for new on the 410, 584, legality 89 21 393 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. the search on of a of the basis Texas, (1969), Aguilar supplementary inquiry and v. 378 637 into the facts. 108, 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. 723 U.S.