United States v. Richard John Barry

Procedure; Appellate Local Fifth Circuit 16), Rehearing Rule the Petition for En Banc filed Honda is DENIED. stay The motion of Honda for pending petition issuance of the mandate Pearson, Stewart, Frates, Richman Floyd, for writ of certiorari is DENIED. Stewart, Greer, Fox, Gary Larry D. S. & Miami, Fla., Dorsey. and Barbara for Glen Associates, An-

Anthony M. Lanzone & Lanzone, Calinoff, Robert A. New

thony M. Co., Honda Motor Ltd. and City,

York

American Honda Motor Co. Morris, Wohlust,

DeWolf, Ward, Jontz & Jr.,

O’Donnell, O’Donnell, Thomas John L. DeWolf, Orlando, Fla., for Honda Motor

B. Co., America, Ltd. UNITED STATES of Plaintiff-Appellee, Eidson,

Akerman, & John Ed- Senterfitt Fisher, Orlando, Fla., win for Continental Cas. Co. BARRY, Richard John Miami, Fla., Unger, Joe N. for Honda Defendant-Appellant. Co., Ltd., American Honda Motor Motor & No. 80-5352. Mission Ins. Appeals, States Court Circuit.

Sixth Argued Oct. 1981. GODBOLD, Judge, Before Chief MOR- HENDERSON, Judges. GAN and Circuit Decided March 1982. Rehearing May Denied BY THE COURT: Dorseys quali- that we The motion of the

fy provide our mandate to for interest from Cir., original judgment, 5

the date of the respect compen- with to both

655 F.2d

satory punitive damages is GRANTED. liability of Continental to Honda for damages punitive award is an issue for

the district court on remand. If Continen- Honda,

tal is held liable to the district court whether li-

should also decide Continental’s of interest.

ability includes the award

Honda’s motion for taxation of costs

against Continental is GRANTED. Dorseys to strike the motion

petition rehearing en banc filed Hon-

da is DENIED. panel Judge of this nor

No member having

regular active service on the Court polled

requested that (Rule Rules

rehearing en banc Segal, City, New York J. Brooke

David Lathram, Burch, Johnson, Porter & Mem- Tenn., defendant-appellant. phis, Atty., Timothy Cody, W. J. Michael U. S. Tenn., DiScenza, plaintiff- Memphis, R. appellee. EDWARDS, Judge, Chief Circuit

Before MARTIN, FEIKENS,* Judge, and Circuit Judge. District Chief MARTIN, Jr., Judge. F. BOYCE Chief by jury possess- Barry was convicted ing a schedule II controlled substance distribute, (Methaqualone) with intent to 841(a)(1). violation of 21 U.S.C. § Barry’s The District denied motion Court suppress allegedly evidence seized in vio- of the Fourth Amendment. The evi- lation dence, containing the controlled four bottles substance, was trial and introduced formed the basis for his conviction. 1) deny now it was error: motion; 2) tele- suppression to admit records offered as evidence to show phone charge. requisite intent under by agents Drug Barry was arrested January Enforcement Administration package 1980 after he claimed a Ex- Memphis, Tennessee office of Federal freight press, carrier. On package had previous day, the arrived Express airport facili- Memphis damaged package ty in a condition. agent service company was referred to a who, circumstances, normal would “rewrap area.” How- have taken it to a ever, through parcel, small hole in the containing pills. agent could see four bottles contraband, agent called a Suspecting manager, Crump, Mr. took the security who * Feikens, Michigan, sitting by designation. Judge, United Honorable John Chief the Eastern District of District Court for opened requirement to his office and it. He inadvertence to this exception large pills, four bottles of each

found inside was not satisfied. Coolidge See v. New Although “Methaqualone.” labeled Metha- Hampshire, qualone may possessed legally, Crump’s District dis- suspicions large quantity were raised agreed, concluding that the DEA’s search pharmaceu- the fact that the was valid under the view doctrine. tical numbers had been effaced. He then now attacks this conclusion and ar- Drug Agency called the Enforcement which gues private as well that the search rule of agents to his office. After exam- sent two applied incorrectly Burdeau was to the contents, ining package- and its facts of this case. agents pills testing. took five for The tests positive. Agents were then resealed the I.

package Express. and returned it to Federal attempted was arrested when he Barry support To his contention that the search package. claim the by Express Federal govern constituted a suppression hearing, search, At Barry private con- mental rather than by Express tended that the search involving cites a number cases the silver purposes was conducted for of federal law platter doctrine. Gambino v. United pri- enforcement and not was therefore States, 72 L.Ed. McDowell, vate search under Burdeau v. (1927); States, Lowrey v. United 65 L.Ed. 1048 (8th 1942); F.2d 477 Cir. Sutherland v. Supreme In Burdeau the held 1937). 92 F.2d 305 safeguards against that warrantless He by analogy that Federal’s search searches and seizures did not extend to effectively circumvented by private searches parties. undertaken Amendment. The Court enunciat private Whatever evidence might citizen prevent ed a test in Gambino to federal lawfully or otherwise obtain from another agents from evading require the warrant can, individual upon its transfer to the by acting ment police. concert with state government, against be used that individu- The Court challenged stated that searches Amendment, al. The Fourth said the should be reviewed to determine whether Court, against secures only govern- citizens had, the state authorities when seizing evi prevent mental action. It does not dence, acted on behalf of the state or using evidence which has whether they only had acted to assist feder fortuitously fallen into its hands. 256 U.S. al law enforcement officers. In the latter denying suppres- 41 S.Ct. at 576. In circumstances, the actions of the state pills, sion of the the District Court held that agents would be characterized as federal Express investigation the Federal was a and the require constitutional warrant valid search conducted under nor- applied ments to the search. Id. at company procedures. mal Gambino, example, For liquor seized in hearing also contended at the a warrantless search state pills samples confiscation of the by the ruled inadmissible in a under prosecution separate governmental DEA constituted a the National Prohibition Act. Because the According Barry, search or seizure. prohibition state law had repealed, illegal warrantless seizure was because it Court found troopers the state did “plain excep- not fall within the view” only purposes acted of federal law en- tion to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant forcement. 275 U.S. at 48 S.Ct. at 138. requirement. Although pills themselves The Court reached despite this conclusion view, they were in the fact that were any participation the absence of evidence of immediately contraband was not obvious by federal agents had to authorities in the search. The because test the entirely upon were in fact Court focused Methaqua- confirm the search’s addition, Barry argued purpose: lone. that the Thus, opinion nign. We are of that the admission in although this memorandum liquor wrongfully seized evidence does evidence the company’s desire assist guaran- of the defendants violated DEA, it alone does compa- not cloak the by the Fourth and Fifth Amend- teed ny’s actions purpose. with a federal Bar- arrest, search, wrongful The ments. ry’s pulled from the main- solely seizure were made on behalf of the stream of thousands parcels because it United States. evidence so secured damaged. had been company had a prosecution was the foundation for the policy diverting damaged packages to a supplied only guilt. evidence of resealing center. Thus the package origi- troopers It is true that were not nally came special scrutiny pri- shown to have acted under the directions vate reasons company policy. making of the federal officials in The fact that Federal Express subse- rights guar- arrest and seizure. But the quently suspicious became of its contents anteed the Fourth and Fifth Amend- and exposed the does contraband not render may effectively by ments be invaded as the search federal. The suspicions arose co-operation by such as the state officers only because of a fortuitous work-related acting under direction of the federal offi- event: the diversion of to the cials. resealing center. Thereafter Federal Ex- press performed duty by preventing the prosecution thereupon instituted transportation interstate illegal drugs. was, by the federal authorities con- We therefore find that the search of Bar- ducted, in effect a ratification of the ar- parcel ry’s private and hence not sub- rest, search, by and seizure made ject to the requirement warrant of the States, troopers on behalf of the United Fourth Amendment. Burdeau v. McDo- (citations omitted) well, supra. 316-17, Id. at 48 at 138. S.Ct. We recognize that a limit exists to the Express that Federal public objectives extent can be hidden be- agents opened parcel his solely to check for hind ostensibly private ones. Private illegal drugs and therefore acted on behalf freight perform carriers a quasi-public government. of the proof As of the nexus function and must do so in a manner con- DEA, Express between Federal and the he public sistent with the trust. If a carrier offers a prepared by memorandum the com- opened packages randomly perhaps or be- pany conjunction with the DEA. It re- they cause matched the criteria of drug quests employees all to cooperate in an ef- profile, we would be concerned about (cid:127) illegal drug shipments. fort to detect How- abuse of that trust in the name of law ever, employees are told that should enforcement. But that was not the case open suspicious packages only if they have reject here. We therefore Barry’s conten- company policy valid doing reasons for so. tion Express that Federal gov- conducted a Otherwise, memo, cautions the the owners ernmental search. packages could claim that their con- rights stitutional have been violated.

addition, the specific memorandum lists cri- II. designed profile drug parcels.

teria We must now determine whether subsequent seizure pill DEA of

One could view this document as an sam- ples Barry’s attempt by open parcel the DEA violated to coach Ex press employees rights. Fourth Amendment Currently, conduct searches that Supreme will meet the interpretation search test of Bur Court’s of the law deau. invites us of search to draw this infer and seizure reveals that evidence However, ence. suppressed inference is not exclu should not be unless it was face, sive. On its asking a) memorandum seized means of: unlawful conduct on employees to company policy part follow is be- of law enforcement authorities

916 b)’ 1054, 1059-61, violated the Fourth Amendment 98 S.Ct. 55 L.Ed.2d 268

rights personal to the defendant. The lat- (1978); Powell, Stone v. ter criterion has with in- employed 489-491, 3037, 3050-51, 96 S.Ct. 49 creasing frequency to derail the exclusion- (1976); Michigan see v. ary rule. recently Until cases which have Tucker, 433, 450-451, 417 explored these two factors have done so 2357, 2367, (1974). Our standing. the rubric e.g. See cases have consistently recognized that Brown v. United 411 93 unbending application exclusionary (1973); S.Ct. 208 sanction to governmen- enforce ideals of Jeffers, v. tal impede rectitude would unacceptably L.Ed. 59 If a defendant could not the truth-finding judge functions of police show that unlawful conduct violated jury. E.g., Powell, supra, Stone his own Fourth Amendment rights, he U.S., S.Ct., 3048-3050; standing would be denied to complain of the Calandra, United States v. supra, 414 alleged violation and the tainted evidence U.S., S.Ct., all, at 620. After it would be important admitted. One fact defendant, is the constable, and not the emanates from these cases: the exclusion- trial, (footnote omitted). who stands ary rule applied every will not be in- Id. at at 2445. stance of unlawful conduct. Deter- Moreover, recog Court has rence of official misconduct is a primary nized of whether the de objective of the rule. exclusion fendant’s own constitutional have probative of valuable evidence is in some been violated need not be undertaken solely high price cases too to pay slight for a in terms standing. Illinois, of Rakas v. 439 police discipline. increase in Thus where 128, 421, 99 U.S. S.Ct. 58 (1978). L.Ed.2d 387 police separated unlawful conduct can be Instead “the analysis better forthrightly fo appraisal from a fair of the defendant’s cuses on the particular extent of a defend rights, Fourth ig- Amendment the law will ant’s under the Fourth Amendment nore proper, a minor deviation from consti- rather any than on theoretically separate tutionally police mandated procedure. but invariably concept intertwined of stand Recently Court made this ing.” 139, Id. at 99 S.Ct. at 428. The test point in Payner, United v. 447 States U.S. developed in Rakas asks whether one 727, has a 2439, (1980): 100 S.Ct. 65 L.Ed.2d 468 “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the cases unexcep- also show that these [The] place searched or the items seized. Id. at principles tional do not command the ex- 143, 99 S.Ct. at 430. A succinct restate

clusion of evidence in every case of ille- ment of the principles Rakas, established in Instead, gality. weighed must be which summarizes that must be against the considerable harm that would claim, undertaken in considering such a is application flow from indiscriminate of found in Mr. Justice concurring Blackman’s exclusionary an rule. opinion in another recent Fourth Amend Thus, the exclusionary rule “has been case, ment “standing” Rawlings v. Ken restricted to those areas where its reme- 98, tucky, 448 100 S.Ct. 65 objectives dial are most efficaciously (1980): Calandra, served.” United v. States 414 view, 338, 348, my Illinois, Rakas v. 38 L.Ed.2d 439 U.S. (1974). (1978), The S.Ct. 58 L.Ed.2d acknowledged Court has [99 387] recognized suppression that two probative analytically of distinct but but costly “invariably tainted evidence exacts a intertwined” toll issues of sub- ability of courts to stantive jurispru- ascertain the truth Fourth Amendment Illinois, Id., E.g., in a criminal case. dence. 428], Rakas v. at 139 at S.Ct. The [99 supra, [128], 439 U.S. first is “whether disputed S.Ct. search or [a] [421], 387]; at 427-28 United seizure infringed has an interest of the [58 Ceccolini, 268, 275-279, 435 U.S. defendant which the Fourth Amendment id., protect,” rules, at 140 designed.to fixed we cannot help but believe that [99 429]; will, the second is whether “the question first perhaps should, S.Ct. or violated challenged search seizure address the legality police conduct. righ[t],” ibid. [that] questions is answered first of these The A. whether defendant by determining The that District expectation privacy” of “legitimate a

has Court correctly concluded that the DEA’s governmental aby has been invaded that warrantless fell seizure within the plain is answer- or seizure. second search view exception requirement. to the warrant by determining applicable ed whether Coolidge Hampshire, See v. New requirements have cause and warrant properly observed. facts present of this case a agree I the Court these two with that situation in although the exception one,” ante, inquiries into “merge implicated, seems to be it does not in fact 2562], in the S.Ct. at sense that both [100 apply. following statement from Cool- principles to be are addressed idge disposes government’s argu- analysis developed Fourth Amendment ment: Katz v. [88 The limits on the doctrine are implicit (1967), and 19 L.Ed.2d 576] in the statement its rationale. The I do not progeny. today’s But read deci first of these is that view alone is sion, Rakas, holding or it is im that never enough to justify the warrantless courts treat proper for lower to these seizure of evidence. This simply is a cor- inquiries as components distinct ollary of principle the familiar discussed Indeed, I Fourth Amendment claim. am above, that no amount probable cause it would convinced that invite confusion can justify a warrantless search or sei- possible hold otherwise. It remains “exigent zure absent circumstances.” In- prove legitimate defendant testimony controvertible of the senses invaded, yet interest incriminating an object premis- is on prove police illegally acted fail es belonging to a suspect criminal may it doing equally possible so. And possible establish the fullest measure of prove defendant that the acted probable cause. But even where illegally, fail the ob- yet prove that his affected, ject contraband, (em is privacy interest was Court has own re- phasis added). peatedly stated and enforced the basic police rule that the may not enter and 2565., 111-112, Id. 100 S.Ct. at make a warrantless seizure. appreciate dividing We this concern over The second limitation is that the dis- preceding analysis. the For a court to con- covery plain of evidence in view must be to ask the tinue whether Fourth Amend- inadvertent. The rationale of the excep- finding ment has been violated after tion to requirement, just the warrant police illegally have seized evidence invites stated, plain-view is that seizure will one govern- the conclusion that branch of initially (and not turn an valid therefore is the condoning illegality ment another. limited) “general” one, search into a unseemly This result can be avoided while the inconvenience of procuring a manipulating the order in the two warrant cover an inadvertent dis- considered, illegal are in factors that both covery great. is But where the discovery privacy conduct and a violation must be is anticipated, where police the know in before will exclusionary found the rule advance the location of the evidence applied. Therefore absence one fac- it, intend will to seize tor obviate the need to consider the situation is alto- gether inquiry requirement because the re- different. The other. of a is, police imposes conduct in warrant seize garding contrast no inconven- whatever, question, governed privacy by relatively ience or at none least which is cognizable legal sys- exigent in a constitutionally circumstances and inadvert- ence regards requirements we mentioned previously tem that warrantless searches as conspicuously are absent from the discus- “per se unreasonable” in absence of Rodriguez plain sion in excep- view “exigent (footnote circumstances.” omit- However, Coolidge tion. requires us to an- ted). alyze “plain view” seizure in light of these Id. at S.Ct. Rodriguez criteria. did not eliminate these apply plain exception To view here plain factors from the view exception. would be to make the obvious mistake Rather, Rodriguez emphasized court in against Coolidge. warned Plain view is other factors particular which that requirement exception. but one Ab- case Although turned. not expressly dis- others, sent necessary. a warrant cussed, exigent circumstances and inadvert- particularly dangerous Plain view is a ex- ence were necessary and were subsumed in because, noted, ception as Justice Stewart case, the court’s analysis. present In the cases, majority any vast evi- “[I]n however, government and the District dence seized will be in Court should not have relied Rodriguez view, at least at the moment of seizure.” because the failed to establish (emphasis Id. at at 2037 requirements: exigent threshold cir- original). Coolidge any- The rule of is that cumstances and inadvertence. may time a warrant be obtained it must be. police may What the consider to be a waste B. of time in a clear overwhelming case of Having determined that the DEA probable preser- cause is at a minimum the unlawfully pill samples, seized the we must right possessions vation of one’s to have reverse the District Court’s order and sup pursuant seized to a limited warrant which press the samples as well as the remainder exactly scope details its own and effect. Methaqualone, of the tainted unless we de termine that Barry had no reasonable ex unquestionable It is the DEA pectation privacy in the contraband at gotten could have a warrant here. Certain the time of the seizure. We first note that ly probable cause was no barrier for charged while possession, with knew, information, based on reliable that alone provide does not necessary Methaqualone awaited their arrival. Fur Salvucci, interest. United States v. thermore, exigent no circumstances excused 65 L.Ed.2d 619 procure their failure to a warrant. Barry’s [overruling the “automatic stand parcel was not due until day. the next ing” rule of Jones v. United DEA had more than sufficient time to seek (I960)]. a warrant. The DEA’s seizure was neither Yet the refusal Court to tie Therefore, exigent. inadvertent nor it was to “arcane” dis unlawful. law, developed tinctions in property Salvuc We turn now to discuss our decision in ci, 91, supra, 2552, 448 U.S. at Rodriguez, 596 F.2d ways. works both We will not deny Barry 1979), upon which the lower court Cir. privacy solely interest on the often ad justify relied to the DEA’s seizure under principle vanced that one legiti can have no plain exception. the view We believe there mate property interest in contraband. See Rodriguez court in dif- slightly the faced a e.g., Jeffers, United States v. 342 U.S. ferent In Rodriguez, upheld situation. we 93, 95-96, 96 (1951); 72 S.Ct. L.Ed. 59 the warrantless seizure of contraband Emery, United States v. 541 F.2d shipped common carrier because three (1st. 1976). via Disregarding property law 1) however, elements co-existed: the officer was law- places something the court in of a present; 2) object fully the was in Determining legitimate vacuum. what is a view; 3) incriminating was privacy question nature interest is a broad whose immediately apparent. perhaps depends Id. at 175. answer most how bailment, Certainly Barry it is asked. we find that he had no and to whom reasonable drugs the DEA to view the expected expectation privacy in his drug parcel. never supplier ordered his to send them he when foregoing analysis supported by Express. just But as certainly Federal via Rawlings v. Kentucky, supra. In that case expect man could to remain no reasonable legitimate Court found no pri- after governmental intrusion free vacy interest remaining drugs which the damaged and its contents ex- placed companion’s defendant had in a shipment. As a fair posed in middle purse subsequently emptied that was at the ground, analysis we feel the focuses on best police. instruction of the Because the de- Barry undertook when he commit- the risks precautions fendant had not taken “normal Methaqualone to Federal’s care. ted privacy” to maintain his in the course of the recognize we must begin To our “sudden bailment” and could not exclude dangerous aspect of traffick- the most purse, others from the the Court declined to ing point lies not at in narcotics suppress the pursuant contraband seized sale, purchase of where at least the con- Id. 448 U.S. at a defective warrant. face, is face to but lies instead in frontation view, at 2561. Barry, our especially the distribution. This is true through his Express, bailment drugs consigned where the have been to a similarly placed Methaqualone beyond shipment. During person third his control and suffered a reduction in the principals relinquished period, the have all scope privacy reasonably expect. he could over items which could lead to their control Finally, Barry argues that ad such drugs exposed, and if arrest. Should precautions ditional were unnecessary be nature as contraband is immediately their cause the DEA had to test apparent, they must know that their arrest confirm that were in fact Methaqua privacy Their will follow. interest then is itself, according lone. The test to Barry, dependent upon factors: the risk of two search, separate constituted a and a further exposure incriminating appearance and the privacy, invasion of which in required turn of the contraband. The former is an exter- As support, a warrant. he cites two recent beyond nal factor the control of either of Supreme Court decisions: Walter v. United parties the two embroiled in the Fourth 100 S.Ct. litigation. possibility Yet the Sanders, Arkansas v. (1980); Express pur- that Federal would for some pose open package, be it for reasons of In each of these cases the Court accident, security, damage, an or is a risk although found that must, or at least should have been lawfully possession come into of certain Barry when considered he decided to use items, respective contraband owners re accept their services. chose to protected tained a privacy interest in the That decision serve only risk. could to re- evidence at the time of its seizure. subjective expectation duce his parcel consigned. in the he Walter involved the FBI’s warrantless screening of obscene films which had been factor, incriminating The second na- agency by turned over to the shipped, ture of the materials was within It party. apparent from the explicit supplier. They the control of and his suggestive labels and titles that these films greater precautions could have taken to dis- pornographic. Nevertheless, were shipment. They chose not to. guise protected Court held that the owners had a Instead, they shipped large quantity privacy interest in the films themselves be- pills plainly in clear bottles which were judicial inquiry cause a further was neces- addition, Methaqualone. pre- In the labeled sary they to determine whether were in numbers on the been scription labels had fact obscene. The labels alone were insuffi- light of Barry’s effaced. In failure to take support cient to a conviction. 447 protect privacy to his interest U.S. at precautions in exposure the risk of inherent his 2400. from 920 Sanders, lawfully petitioner knowingly accepted in that an ille-

Similarly, the drugs of they gal shipment had reason and therefore was a suitcase which acquired properly pursuant admitted to Rules 401 marijuana. contained to believe and 402 of the Federal of Rules of Evidence. expectation the owner’s citing held that the unopened bag, the Court the Judgment affirmed. the Amendment police violated Fourth they opened obtaining when it without first EDWARDS, Jr., GEORGE CLIFTON 99 a U.S. at warrant. Judge, dissenting. Chief position anticipated This the Court’s 2593. governed by This case séems tó me to be Ex ever in Walter when it noted since that of the result the United States Jackson, 727, 24 L.Ed. 877 parte U.S. in Walter v. United majority Court recognized it that lawful (1878), has been packages of sealed does not con- possession (1980). That case involved the unauthor- right the to con- fer ized of films there exhibition as to which a warrantless search its contents. duct of might was to believe be they reason that Walter, supra, 100 S.Ct. at be found to obscene. This case involved the and, hence, warrantless unauthorized sei- chemical distinguisha- find both of zure and to We these cases Walter turned on the fact which there was reason to believe that that ble. might illegally possessed be sub- protected by the First controlled material seized was In both I testing stances. instances believe The chemical of Bar- Amendment. required Amendment a search Fourth simply investigation ry’s pills not an investigative before the warrant federal in Walter to adjudge required scale procedure was carried out. obscenity of the was at most films. It Sanders is For the same routine. reason Walter, Stevens, opinion In of Justice applicable. When suitcase was not seemingly concurred in on this issue seized, tell the officers could not Court, majority of the said as follows: alone that it contra- appearance contained perfectly agents’ It obvious that marijuana Discovering band. the concealed to viewing reason the films was deter- required separable search from the sei- guilty mine whether their owner was of a of the zure suitcase. The same cannot be sure, offense. federal To be the labels on here perfunctory said of test conducted gave probable the film boxes them cause by DEA. to believe the films were obscene conclusion, shipment, their in interstate Barry’s we hold commerce offended the federal crimi- were violated. The not nal code. But the labels not suffi- were properly District denied motion to support cient and were suppress Methaqualone. conviction not mentioned in the Fur- indictment. III. investigation say, ther is to —that of the search contents of the films —was Finally Barry certain evi challenges necessary in order to evidence obtain the dentiary rulings Specifi of the trial court. was to be used at trial. he cites as admission cally, error the telephone Tampa, agents records of calls The fact that FBI lawfully made were Florida, point prior to his shipment, possession the boxes of film did not receipt parcel, give authority evidence of them their con- and of search pickups shipped him Ever since previous packages tents. 1878 when Mr. Justice parte Ex Tampa. opinion We find of discre no abuse Field’s the Court in Jackson, of the trial court. part 877], 96 U.S. 727 estab- tion on L.Ed. [24 Jenkins, lished that sealed in the mail packages 525 F.2d warrant, opened 1975). The evidence relevant to the cannot without a it charged has settled that an authori- element indictment which officer’s ty possess is distinct from authority to examine its contents. Sanders,

See Arkansas v. 2586, 2589, 235]; L.Ed.2d [99 Chadwick, 1, 10

United v. States 2476, 2482, 53

[97 538]. supra

Walter v. United (footnote omitted).

100 S.Ct. at 2400 case, (United Rodriguez

Since the

v. Rodriguez, 1979)) 596 F.2d 169 Judge opinion

discussed Martin’s was de-

cided before this court the benefit of

the Supreme opinion Court’s in Walter v. States, supra, my view it cannot

govern our current decision.

I judgment would reverse the Dis-

trict Court. CLARK,

Bettie Ethel On Behalf of Similarly

Herself and All Others

Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, CORPORATION,

CHRYSLER

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80-2064.

United States of Appeals,

Seventh Circuit.

Argued Nov. 1981.

Decided March 1982.

Rehearing April Denied

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Richard John Barry

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 19, 1982

Citation: 673 F.2d 912

Docket Number: 80-5352

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.