United States v. Thomas

duty PAIR, ond on NEBEKER, District) Before HAR- and unmarked; Georgetown.2 RIS, Their car Associate Judges. faced, face, dissent, position sole- 1. In The trial court we now liis takes our brother ly legal question viewing light of the reasonableness lie is “in the evidence respect appellees.” unchal- and seizure in most favorable We testimony. fully lenged “obligated suggest evaluating are exer- We the record independent judgment eyes through the under- cise his own rather than [our] lying presented experienced police issue those of the constitutional trained case”, scene, rejecting free” to and we are “not facts of this officers who were on the disregard essentially evidence which uncontradicted inferences unavoidable Cady fully accepted quarrel trial court. facts. We have no with the author Dombrowski, ities in his which he relies footnote (1973). inapposite D.Ed.2d 706 since this case but consider them questions. contains no See factual Common Squad assignment Super. officers Pugh, Tactical 2. The wealth 223 Pa. prevention such as of offenses includes Smith 865-866 Cf. investiga- robbery burglary, States, D.C.App., as well as the 295 A.2d nature. (1972) ; of that tion of offenses committed Jenkins v. United 284 A.2d the Thunder- Meanwhile, the driver When they were dressed casual clothes. U-turn, occur, (appellee Sutton) made bird began to the relevant events intersection, and turned parked near the away from the the officers were then blew lights. the car’s Sutton nearby dealer’s off checking a horn, attracted the attention car’s premises. K. Officer Samuel shadowing the women. the men were which who seated alone in the was pointed turned, of them The men and one parked of 33d and was at the intersection Mer- Streets, to the darkened car which Officer Prospect There had been N.W. egian (apparently unobserved was seated in the area. Officer numerous robberies “appeared to prior time). attracted to Sutton Meregian’s attention was He gentlemen.” summon the other two passed through Ford Thunderbird which Street, picked up up drove 33d quickly five minutes. the intersection twice within men, and left scene. the second After it crossed the intersection time, stopped, got men out. it and two Meregian’s two point, At that Officer Thomas; was appellee was the other One Meregian partners to their car. returned named Banks. happening ex- had been described what police drove suspicions. The Meregi- pressed his suspicious,

Immediately Officer locate up in an effort computer on the 33d Street an radioed for a check east on Meregian As turned to determine Thunderbird. Thunderbird’s license number high- Street, lights. A its tail As he N he saw the car had been stolen. whether exact route of began, in- speed chase diagonally across watched record. clear tersection, surreptitiously be- which not made on men the two speeds pursued walk- The Thunderbird was gan to two women who were follow per along congest- miles hour up testified excess of 50 ing 33d Street. officer passed streets; it on several occasions boxes and Mr. ed that “there were tree side of traveling wrong hiding in the cars while Thomas and Banks were chase, only During the while and the sidewalk the road. space between the trees Thunder- lengths behind the presumably “prey”] five or six car pry [sic; to make a bird, Meregian observed the on the victim [s].” testimony excerpt A hundred feet? Q. from the of Officer 3. The say quoted feet. Meregian I less than a hundred in the dissent A. would which is suspected you portion criminal appropriate And there was Q. forth that set makes activity immediate- afoot? cross-examination Yes, ly preceded A. sir. it: your again? you get point you Did out of Q. ob- it at Now was Q. following No, A. sir. and Mr. Thomas Banks served Mr. Now, you afraid for these two weren’t Q. these two ladies? walking up they Yes, sir; got 33rd Street? ladies their vehicle out of A. Yes, A. sir. north on 33rd Street from and walked your car? right didn’t out Q. You behind them. physical period contact long been no A. There had not occurred of time And how Q. alleged suspects they following from the ladies? these two victims — were while elapsed? victims. much time How mug waiting them period, very Q. You now were sir. A short A. lurking them, what? You mentioned Q. No, sir, waiting I had an- I until A. boxes? [Sic.] tree disposition right. on the back other unit there A. That tag your suspicion; first. aroused Q. That disposition you get back on When did Q. not? tag? Yes, sir, rob- had numerous we have A. present on the scene. A. While area. in that beries yards just you received word [Officer a few hundred And Q. stolen.] away; was not listed Thunderbird .as is that correct? say just sir, no, Oh, it was I would A. hundred feet. the car which resulted the seizure of the seat of the Thunderbird in the front reasonable, “peri- must leaning we ana forward (appellee Thomas) “ lyze facts and odically” head the floor. all of ‘the circumstances— with his toward atmosphere case,’ the total activity to the attention of . He called that partners, W. of established Fourth Amend one of his Officer James principles.” process did ment In the Squad The Tactical officers of that Davis. analysis, stop quarry, give called we attempt recognition their but due .must A marked how appeared for assistance on their radio. the total circumstances prudent stopped the Thunderbird cautious and cruiser officers. See Street, N.W.; po- Ohio, a third 1700 block of almost im- lice vehicle arrived on scene 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); cf. Lucas v. mediately. D.C.App. 256 A.2d (1969); v. U. suspects the four still in the Jackson While were 260, S.App.D.C. 262, 194, 302 F.2d Thunderbird, Meregian before Officer (1962). vehicle, partners got his out of their Meregian Davis to Officer told Officer appellee When Thomas and his right seat of check the area of the front partner alighted from their car at' 2:00 a. appellee had (where the car Thomas morning, m. that they immediately began during “for his chase) leaned over the pedestrians. stalk two female At that self-preservation.” approached Officers point, unquestionably Meregian Officer occupants ordered the Thunderbird and the empowered was investigate subjects’ the so, They out. two on each side. suspicious Terry Ohio, conduct. supra. v. frisked, They apparently and Officer outnumbered, Alone and Meregian deter approached open passenger Davis door. response mined to a await to his stolen car car, feeling He reached into the under the inquiry and partners. the return of his passenger front his left hand and seat with abrupt departure suspects post glove compartment with poned confrontation, the opportunity for a pistol hand. A recovered from ensuing but (including events compartment; glove behind the it later high-speed gestures by appel chase and the was determined that the had been sto- lee passenger seat) Thomas in the front Depart- Metropolitan len from the Police heightened wholly the officers’ appellees, Both were the ment. who dealing poten belief that they were with seat, charged men in the front with tially dangerous would-belawbreakers. carrying a and re- pistol without license clearly The circumstances war ceiving property. stopping ranted for a Ter either ry-type variety of investigation are the basic facts.4 In de or 'for a

Those flagrant termining the limited search traffic offenses.6 whether When Chimel v. 752, 765, California, dissent that the evidence 395 U.S. 4.It is stated 2041, 2034, more than that 89 S.Ct. 23 L.Ed.2d 685 “establishes little riding Rabinowitz, companions citing United v. 339 U.S. were observed States and their two (1950) ; 430, automobile 94 L.Ed. in a Ford Thunderbird see also U.S.App. early Davis, Georgetown hour of at an United States v. the streets of Davis v. by ; pursued 400, (1972) morning, 458 F.2d D.C. persons riding in an unidentified usually denied, asso- 409 F.2d cert. 395 U.S. of the indicia which had none (1969). inter- 89 S.Ct. 23 L.Ed.2d 469 vehicle.” After so ciated with prin- record, preting brother relies our During suppression hearing, might quotations cipally what various ap- If he had cited cases. was asked whether traffic described as routine be pellee case, cited for the traffic violations the cases Sutton a routine traffic this were replied: sir; might He “No How- were committed. relevant. dissent well be write traffic offenses.” ever, don’t relied we consider decisions inapposite, it is and do not feel be him to necessary individually. deal them with dealing stopped, with whom unquestionably Officer Davis’ weapon unex- that could resulting limited search —and seizure armed with fatally against him. pectedly have been rea- be used of the stolen —would if be re- Certainly sonable it had been conducted while would unreasonable suspects quire four were still in the car. Adams officers take unneces- Williams, sary performance risks of their Ohio, (1972); Terry supra; L.Ed.2d 612 duties. California, see Chimel expected persons who are 23 L.Ed.2d 685 being pursued police officers will seek presented by appeal The narrow issue illegal weap an hide such as contraband may the sus- be stated: Did removal of McGee v. United D.C. on. See pects from their car made unreasonable In our App., which would have been reasonable search view, above-quoted suggested lan conclude had remained it? We it would be unreasona guage Terry, did not.7 take unneces require ble to officers to suspects their car leaving risk of sary Ohio, supra, dealt making protective search of limited while specifically a limited automo readily accessible areas pedestrian. However, principles aof concept recog bile’s interior. This wholly in that case are consist- enunciated Supreme in Court specifically by nized concept an ent with the automobile’s 443, Coolidge Hampshire, v. New 403 U.S.

passenger compartment may subject be the 2022, (1971), 29 564 91 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. search, a limited in such of circumstances extensively dealt with warrantless which presented here, protection those for the there was stat searches of automobiles. might of officers who be endan- otherwise (id. at 2035): n. 91 ed at S.Ct. permitted if gered occupants at an reenter the vehicle the end of inves- course, suspect if is a criminal there Of tigative in inquiry. The stated Ter- Court enough so that he close to the automobile ry (392 at 1881): U.S. 88 S.Ct. at might weapon destroy a from or it, police may make evidence within are than now concerned with more We appropriately scope.8 a of limited search governmental investigat- interest in [Footnote added.] crime; ing addition, in there is the more case, plethora this a virtual of articu- In police immediate interest of the officer justified suspicions lable existed which taking steps in to assure himself that the may a make the search of a ear without war- The obvious differences between the warrant- although the result rant a reasonable one less of an search automobile and a house for home, might opposite a early in a search of purposes, be the recognized constitutional piece property. store, fixed of in Carroll v. States, a or other U.S. United 267 (1925), 153-154, 45 L.Ed. 543 S.Ct. State, Daygee 514 P.2d 1159 recognized, In v. g.,B. continued to be see have recently Supreme Cady stated Dombrowski, supra, of Alaska Court at 439- U.S. (at 1166): Maroney, 2523; Chambers v. S.Ct. not de- 42, 48-52, The of the vehicle should search 26 L.Ed. U.S. pend per- or Supreme whether or not stated 2d Court car have been Cooper sons arrested are or California, 386 U.S. pur- recently (1967) the car for removed : L.Ed.2d 730 effectuating poses reach of an arrest. We in Preston [v. made it clear We 364, 366-367, be an un- this because would conclusion 84 S.Ct. (1964)] a officer not usual situation for that whether L.Ed.2d 777 going suspect from a within remove a while is unreasonable search and seizure process, meaning for reasons the arrest both Amendment de- of Fourth practical physi- safety pends upon of and because of the facts and circumstances effecting particular, pointed out, an arrest such cal limitations of each case and constantly are movable confined area. searches cars appellant. He steps taken The limited then went the car officers. fully-loaded un- “justified car was recovered search both at reasonably der driver’s he inception” scope related in seat where “reasonably expected in it to The officer did justified circumstances be. which trunk, compartment or Terry glove search the place.” in the first terference 19-20, at back His search was not Ohio, supra, at seat. U.S. 88 S.Ct. 1879; exploratory, but rather limited Jeffreys see D.C. danger at hand. search under the App., Young v. (1973); 312 A.2d 308 open-door seat driver’s of an vehicle which the driver return a search (1970).9 Supreme As will Williams, area supra, under the immediate control stated in Adams v. the driver.10 at at 1923: U.S. 92 S.Ct. added.] [Footnote concluding, thought ex- we echo one long make as the officer is entitled So pressed Ohio, supra (392 stop, reason to believe a forcible and has 1876): dangerous, suspect that the is armed weapons limited may conduct say Nothing we is to taken as today purpose. scope this indicating approval conduct omitted.] [Footnote investigative outside legitimate sphere. decision, still Under our courts essentially point, dealt this we have To responsibility to retain their traditional Supreme Court those decisions guard against police conduct which Addition- lead to our conclusion. which us overbearing or harassing, ju- ally, there are two decisions within personal trenches security without result. lead to the same risdiction which objective evidentiary justification opinion in McGee v. They are this court’s requires. which the Constitution Circuit supra, and the Green, opinion in Court’s United States principle That remains inviolate. How F.2d ever, objective in no sense could the effec cases, pur- police officers In both of those tive, responsible the police action of offi offenders, and ob- routine traffic sued or overbearing cers in this case be labeled gestures led the officers served which incidentally, harassing terms, are which — In subjects might be armed. believe the antitheses of reasonableness. Consid stopped and di- was each case the offender ering totality circumstances, of the following car, out his rected in limited search which resulted the seizure gun. of the car revealed limited search permissi constitutionally of the was formally suspect In neither case was F. Ragsdale, ble. United States v. Cf. prior the fruitful arrest placed under 1972); 2d 24 Cir. (5th States gun. Both searches were search for the Brooks, F.Supp. (E.D.Ark.1970). Green, the court held to reasonable. having grant suppress been motion (id. 625): F.2d at stated at is erroneously, ed to such effect the order and the reversed case remanded. a limited first conducted The officer Reversed remanded. weapons upon the “frisk” for supra, Supreme (id. Williams, Young at In Adams in stated Court 9. The Circuit (407 409) further stated : F.2d at 1925) requires officer] S.Ct. at : [an All the law policeman’s believing circumstances his these Under basis for have safety spot reaching requires safety in where action of others or the thought hidden to be constituted was seizure. designed his insure a limited intrusion safety, reason- and we conclude able. PAIR, No, I did Judge (dissenting): Associate A. not. Q. they

The result close get reached How to the two is, contrary my opinion, this case to well ? ladies jurisdiction. established law in this say approximately IS A. I would quite I differently read record feet.

my panel. Viewing associates on the Q. they And when the tree evidence—as must—in the most we box? appellees,1 favorable to the it establishes little more than that and their intersec- A. few feet above the Just companions riding in a were observed Prospect. tion of 33rd Ford Thunderbird automobile Q. suspi- your And that didn’t arouse early streets of at an hour Georgetown of the car you cion or cause out the morning,2 pursued and that approach them ? persons riding unidentified an auto the indicia mobile which had none of No, victims out alleged A. usually associated with a vehicle. them, area, see but saw did not What the record shows is that Officer suspects the intersec- just the two above Meregian, clothes, dressed in casual tion 33rd Street. parked seated in an unmarked said that: majority opinion In the Prospect near the intersection of 33rd Streets, N.W., and observed a Thunderbird part- appellee Thomas and When proceeding easterly direc- m. alighted from their car at 2:00 a. ner time tion A short Street. began immediately morning, again thereafter he observed the automobile At that pedestrians. stalk two female proceeding through the intersection point, unquestionably Officer was then same direction. The automobile investigate sub- empowered to stop alighted and and two men observed to Ohio, Terry v. jects’ suspicious conduct. northerly in a walked on 33rd direction supra. Street. Observed were two women also course, in the same walking is, ahead of the two men to this simple answer direction.3 confront the two the officer did not suffi- men; fact, apparently he was During the of the of- cross-examination of his get out to even ciently concerned ficer, transpired: following the automobile. your Q. get car you Did then out of further that the testified The officer approach Mr. Thom- Mr. Banks and in a and headed turned automobile as? 30, States, that, 316 apparently 115 of the view 1.The D.C.App., ; States, (1963) prevailing v. although Smith United the were the (1972) ; 64, v. United appeal Jenkins parties A.2d 67 in the trial on the record ; (1971) D.C.App., States, light most must in the nevertheless viewed Malloy States, 246 A.2d government. well favorable to the But always contrary. law is settled prevailing party to the who is entitled tag ap challenged license presumption ruling made a note of the The officer on immediately almost peal and obtained number end the record is correct and to this indicating report not been the vehicle had most favorable must be viewed no traffic warrant was out- Ingram and that prevailing party. See such United standing. U.S. ; (1959) L.Ed.2d 1503 Hallman United any U.S.App.D.C. 350, kind no contact 3. The officer observed 320 F.2d denied, men and the two women. the two cert. 84 S.Ct. between 375 U.S. (1963) ; Campbell D.Ed.2d 113 westerly senger direction on area weap- Street of the and a automobile parked. 33rd Street where of- it was The on was found under the dashboard behind out, ficer lights glove compartment. stated that went sounded, horn was “observed argument suppress At on the motion to subjects [who] disembark[ed] weapon, government conceded that initially vehicle hack and one turn opera- there was no evidence that the (1) pointed police vehicle.” The auto- appel- tor of the automobile in which the proceeded mobile northerly then in a direc- have, if riding request- lees were could not tion on passengers 33rd Street and the two ed, presented registra- a valid license alighted who had earlier the vehicle automobile, tion for he was (2) presumably picked up. offense,

given any a citation for traffic Meregian, in the meantime probable Officer who cause ar- (3) that there existed rejoined officers operator any had been two other rest the of the automobile or clothes, pro- also then impound dressed casual passengers one of the or to police in an effort “to ceeded in the car automobile.

get behind” the automobile but when government insisted nevertheless sight. reached Street it was not 33rd right that the had the to search the easterly proceeded then officers vehicle as trial measure. The N observed some direction on Street and unpersuaded—suppressed lights “the of a vehicle distance ahead tail court — and, my opinion, ruling was correct. rapid speed moving rate hardly It is so re well settled now as to Mer- wrong roadway.4 side of quire authority any the citation egian although some or six stated that five automobile, search or conducted without a war seizure lengths to the rear of the “per rant se” pas- unreasonable body he was able observe subject only Fourth to few senger seat “bent over front Amendment — exceptions, of which is well identified none top of his head the front seat where the setting. to be found in factual facing toward the floor- head was Bustamonte, 412 Schneckloth v. U.S. board.” (1973); ac 93 S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d 854 attempt stop the automo Making no cord, Almeida-Sanchez v. assistance, bile, requested officers the three 93 S.Ct. 37 L.Ed.2d 596 responded who and the uniformed officers Hampshire, Coolidge (1973); v. New finally in the 1700 stopped 443, 454-455, U.S. L.Ed. Street, The automo Eye block of N.W.5 (1971); Maroney, 2d 564 Chambers immediately surrounded bile was then 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 occupants and all of officers out, required to after which States, D.C.App., In Watts v. United the to the rear of automobile were escorted sought to make (1972), the A.2d 790 court where, po four of at least custody no crystal police it that clear have of officers, One frisked. lice an exploratory of to make pas- the front then searched the officers gave explanation W., knowledge for general no N. the officer that matter of is a and, pursue narrow, automobile no his decision to it has that is N in area Street officers, it parking permitted cause of other both assistance is center line and Strangely enough, stopped. roadway. auto- to be sides of the as the same auto- was never identified mobile by Prospect at near and mobile observed officer at from observations Aside Streets, Streets, and 33rd N. W. and the intersection of 33rd appear to a traffic Neither the search to be automobile even as an incident does reasonably protection related arrest,6 to the of saying at 792: the officers. officers had no “[T]he is When the search made without a war- crime, report complaint or of a had nev- rant, probable it be with or must cause appellant er ob- seen before and not relationship bear some reasonable to the engage him in conduct.” serve unlawful crime made or to for which the arrest is States, D.C.App., Robinson v. United safety ’f is to the officer it come A.2d There was no exceptions within one war- appellant reason to think that was about requirement Coolidge rant in described subject of ar- to become the a custodial Hampshire, New rest the officers which would warrant .... (1971) 29 L.Ed.2d steps protect taking them- reempha Supreme recently Court standing at the time in selves. He was when, sized in all of this Almeida-Sanchez officer front of the car with third so States, supra, v. United it declared at 269 posed, the contents of car U.S., of 413 : 2537 of S.Ct. most, a the officers. minimal threat Carroll doctrine7 does not de [T]he [Footnote omitted.] clare day police a field for search bar, urged Tyler, In the case at as is ing no automobiles. auto Automobile gesture put that it was the furtive mobile, probable there must be cause guard provoked intru- officers on and the search. As Mr. wrote Justice White However, sion into the automobile. Maroney, for the Court Chambers v. inescapable is the search of the fact enforcing :‘In the Fourth automobile after its four occu- was made prohibition against Amendment’s unrea pants rear of the had been escorted seizures, the sonable searches and remained where upon probable has insisted cause as police custody ” other offi- at least four requirement minimum . . . . therefore, Certainly, cers. cannot be se- [Footnote omitted.] rea- the search riously contended that Annot., See also Warrantless Search sonably protection of the of- related to the Automobile, seq. 893 et L.Ed.2d ficers. Moreover, majority suggests hardly that because assumed that it can fleeing knowingly the confluence of such considerations area”, pursuing “numerous robberies in since the three officers un- hour, gesture late uniform, the furtive were not in their vehicle was traffic, attempted congested marked, de- flight through no siren was sounded ten- justified displayed. only the most the search seizure were vice Thus suspicion it be reasoning But mere uous could concluded therefore reasonable. operated in further v. United that an automobile case controlled McGee not, (1970), activity ance of some criminal with more, reversing support a warrant- which the relies out sufficient in- automobile or the the trial In that case the search less search of either the court. clearly D. cident for the Tyler valid arrest was passengers. and, protection there- ad officer C.App., 302 A.2d 748 facts, fore, only distinguishable on dressing similar factual situa a somewhat Tyler tion, bar the case at but also said at 752: sharply fore, very so conduct of criminal 6. Here were not accused charged Coolidge, supra. conduct; fact, even condemned were not offense, operator a traffic nor was States, 7. exhibit Carroll of called (1925). registration permit 69 L.Ed. 543 of his or the either record, in this there- Demonstrated vehicle. States, supra, speaking v. United for majority Watts in Almeida-San States, supra. chez supra, v. United 413 U.S. at of 2540: The needs law In Dickerson D.C.App., enforcement stand in constant tension with (1972), A.2d 708 the defendant was protections the Constitution’s of the indi charged under arrest with traffic viola against vidual certain exercises of official tions. After he had been removed from power. precisely predictability It is vehicle, placed his car in a pressures these a resolute counsels officer reached of defend seat loyalty safeguards. to constitutional It is ant’s gun. car and The found well to recall the words of Mr. Justice was held illegal. to be To same effect Jackson, soon after his return Page, United States v. Nuremberg Trials: There a vehicle “These rights], Amendment [Fourth stopped speeding for and the officers ob protest, are not rights mere second-class served the passenger front seat but belong in the catalog indispensa- officer, something. move as if to hide The ble Among deprivations freedoms. [the] apparently safety, or concerned for rights, none is cowing so effective in passenger dered to leave the vehicle population, crushing spirit and, upon compliance, he was frisked and a putting individual and every terror in upheld person. was found on his We heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure suppression agreeing trial court’s order is one of the first and most effective probable that there was no to search cause weapons in the every arsenal of arbi- passenger. government Page, trary government.” Brinegar v. United Tyler, as in Watts and relied on United Green, States v. (Jackson, J., 93 L.Ed. 1879 dissent- and the case as McGee ing). search, support but we re jected the claim—as have other courts. suppression I would affirm the order en- Humphrey, See United States v. F.2d and, tered this case accordingly, respect- (10th 1969); People Superior Cir. fully dissent. Court of County, Yolo 3 Cal.3d

Cal.Rptr. P.2d compelled is thus conclusion simply one more instance of case police activity. Unfortunately

overzealous justified any theory cannot be gestures” legitimate “furtive CHRISTMAS, Appellant, Richard G. Thus, my wholly apart measures. differences as to what with the STATES, Appellee. UNITED reveals or as to what law con- record No. 6952. trols, Judge Wright’s observation dissent- Green, supra, is es- ing in United States Appeals. District of Columbia Court of apt pecially here: Argued June case, simple but disarmingly This is a Decided Feb. it, my judg- disposition the court’s ment, jeopardizes privacy and rights every citizen who

constitutional capital. nation’s a car

drives . . F.2d

. [465 625.] is the lan- appropriate

But even more Stewart

guage employed Mr. Justice

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Thomas

Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Published: Jan 31, 1974

Citation: 314 A.2d 464

Docket Number: 6758

Court Abbreviation: D.C.