United States v. Vance E. Robinson

America, Appellant, STATES UNITED E.

Vance ROBINSON.

No. 74-1778. Appeals, States Court

United Circuit.

District Columbia

Argued 1975. Oct. filed Oct. 1975.

Judgment Feb. 1976.

Opinion filed Denied March

Certiorari Rauh, Principal Atty.,

Carl S. Asst. U. S. Washington, C.,D. Earl appellant. for J. Silbert, Atty., Terry, U. S. John A. James F. Rutherford, James F. McMullin and Jeffrey Demerath, Attys., T. U. Asst. S. Wash- C., ington, D. appel- were on the brief for Henry Greene, F. lant. Executive Asst. U. C., Atty., Washington, also entered S. D. appearance for appellant. Christensen, Washington, J. Theodore D. (appointed by Court), appellee C. Robinson. BAZELON, Judge,

Before Chief WRIGHT, McGOWAN, TAMM, LEVEN- THAL, ROBINSON, MacKINNON, ROBB WILKEY, Judges, sitting Circuit en banc.

LEVENTHAL, Judge: Circuit appeal by This is an the Government suppressing from a District Court order cer- clothing and guns, money, occupied by Negro males, tain two last seen evidence— by items—seized other relevant heading Street, north on 8th N.E.” The parked and a of a during warrantless search were officers told that the car was wanted car, unoccupied allegedly appellee used in connection a possible robbery. bank following an getaway car Robinson as the Almost simultaneously, the officers saw robbery. On June a bank armed Robinson’stan pass Eldorado Cadillac in the court the District division of this affirmed opposite heading lane north. The officers granted court Court’s order. This squad turned their marked car around and rehearing petition for a en Government’s followed the Eldorado to 7th and Orleans banc, argument en banc on and heard oral where pulled Streets it over to the left curb 1975. On October October of the street and came to a halt. It was entered, or- en order of reversal was banc raining very day hard that and the two that dering the items seized from the car be suspects remained the Eldorado for a few allowed into evidence if otherwise admissi- alighting. moments before Robinson, the opinion ble. We stated would issue driver, out, got officers, looked over We with a begin due course. statement smiled at them and then reached into the heavily of facts that draws careful back to get seat coat put which he on. panel opinion. statement passenger, Robinson and the who had no coat, began walking then south toward I. Place, N.E., Morton they where met a third March, 1974, the 21st of at about On person. Robinson and third m., a branch of the American Se- 11:15 a. Street, walked into a house at 1111 7th in- Company, federally & Trust curity passenger walking while the continued Capitol at 822 East sured institution located down Morton Place. C., N.E., Street, Washington, D. was robbed suspects After two departed, had Of- black males. later a wit- four Moments ficers Schlueter and Perkins drove around ness, Leary, Ms. Eleanor who was in the up the block and came behind the Eldorado process parking her near the car intersec- they where noticed a hanging cable wire Streets, tion of 8th and A four observed trunk, from they which took to indic- trotting black men north on 8th Street in having ative of the trunk been closed in got her direction. Two of them into a hurry, they so take decided to a closer look. luxury (later two-toned tan automobile they When looked through window of the Eldorado) identified as a Cadillac de- Eldorado, they clothing saw a bundle scene; parted from the one crossed with a blue coat on top passen- beneath the vehicle; street and fled a second ger point seat. At they some tried to open fourth flight continued his on foot. Alerted the doors Eldorado found that the siren from a passing police Ms. they Thinking were locked. odd that the Leary approached policemen two who had passenger had heavy walked out into a rain arrived on the scene and told them what coat, putting without on a they called for she had seen. The police relayed in turn assistance, nearby alley in a her information to the communica- keep where could in sight. squad tions their office via car radio. The Leary officers next escorted Ms. minutes, a Within fifteen Detective Fon- premises bank where she talked with sever- tana and several others arrived at the loca- investigating al detectives and then took tion of the vehicle. Detective Fontana tes- her home. tified that when he arrived there were m., “about ten” officers in approximately vicinity

At 11:25 a. Officers (Tr. 14). Meanwhile, Perkins, who Schlueter and were routine a Detective Kaclik and an patrol agent picked up 6th K F.B.I. the intersection of Ms. Streets, E., message Leary at her home N. received a flash and drove her to Orleans Place squad directing positively over car radio them to where she their identified the auto luxury be on lookout for “tan Eldorado as one she seen had earlier. This automobile, for- ble cause to search the approximately made there identification fifty-five justify minutes after rob- was insufficient the fail- ty-five 107). with Tr. Offi- ure to (Compare Treating exigency Tr. 18 obtain warrant. bery. “basically ... question,” called a Mobile Crime Lab a factual then cer Fontana vehicle, panel opening decided the District Court’s assistance it, being particular- ruling “clearly was not erroneous.” But the search processing avoiding complication dispute; the facts here are not in there is ly interested witnesses, contributing question credibility officer his no unspecialized 21-22). (Tr. legal After the arrival of the issue is a one of constitutional prints own Lab, dimension, present whether Crime Detective Fontana these facts the Mobile passer- “exigent” the law young instead the aid situation that considers enlisted through dispense require- him a dollar to reach as to with the warrant paid so of the car open window and lift ment.1 partially

the lock. The car was unlocked fifteen sup- burden is on Government Leary’s positive after Ms. identifi- minutes of a warrantless search. port legality “ (Tr. 22). Officer Alford of the Mo- cation ‘[Sjearches judicial conducted outside Crime Lab conducted a search of the bile process, prior approval by judge or without section and found that passenger the blue magistrate, per are se unreasonable under seat, previously coat under front ob- subject only to a the Fourth Amendment — window, through the wrapped served well-deline- specifically few established and ” money and a around revolver. The car was Hamp- v. exceptions.’ Coolidge ated New taken to the headquar- then Fifth District shire, 443, 454-55, 2022, 403 U.S. S.Ct. police opened ters where the the trunk and 2032, (1971). 29 L.Ed.2d 564 Furthermore carbine, money found a and a large purse- exceptions ‘jealously are and careful- “[t]he type bag similar to one carried the bank drawn,’ showing by ly and there must be ‘a During car, robbers. his search of the Offi- . . that exemption those who seek registered cer Alford discovered a letter that exigencies of the situation made ” beamingRobinson’s name and a nearby ad- 455, imperative.’ course U.S. dress. Police officers went immediately to “exigent” has S.Ct. 2032.2 The term this address but found the apartment emp- legal become the for a set of designation ty- situations ex- emergency law enforcement eight 2,

In an requirement. count indictment May cepted filed from the warrant 1974, turn, Robinson situations, generally and a ana- co-defendant were are These charged component armed bank robbery, bank of the various lyzed terms. robbery, robbery, armed to the need robbery, which contribute assault dangerous with a weapon, and Robinson action. for immediate additionally charged with two counts III. carrying dangerous weapon. Subse- quently, May Robinson filed a with reference to begins The Government suppress motion to the fruits of the automo- exception” long-established “automobile co-defendant, bile search. His Michael J. where requirement to the warrant Bradshaw, is not present involved in the v. United mobility. Carroll premised appeal. States, 69 L.Ed. S.Ct. U.S. Maroney, (1925); Chambers

II. (1970). 90 S.Ct. Upon application of Carroll argues that just Appellee facts recounted both the this case would make the District progeny Court and the its panel came to the rule, that, “exception” the and turn conclusion although automobile proba- there was Compare Collins, Quoting v. United 389 U.S. Katz United States App.D.C. 100, n.11, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 614 n.11 (1971) (determination probable cause). into “talisman” potential the word “automobile” mobility made it reasonable to supposed to be. it is not (an immobilize act amounting to a 443, 461-62, Hampshire, New it), de facto seizure of and to continue the (1971). The 29 L.Ed.2d 564 immobilization until a warrant was obtain- the mere fact that Government admits ed, then under Chambers an immediate dispense an automobile is involved does search was also proper.4 Defendants con- warrant, insists remains a with the tend Chambers equivalence of im- significant factor. mobilization and is applicable only the Chambers fact situation, of a car “exigency” term com very stopped moving while on the highway, analysis shaped by the reali mands that stoppage where the of movement itself con- presented situation ties of intrusion, stitutes a substantial and is not Here we are with the war record. faced applicable parked to a and unoccupied unoccupied, rantless search of where all that is needed is a non-intrusive parked left and locked car. When overwatch.5 defendants, effect, in vol the were their untarily relinquishing vehicle’s mobili The application of the Carroll doctrine, The ty, present. police at for the then least Chambers, characterized in to unoccupied, any to realistic proceeded possibil eliminate parked cars6 has been particularly trouble- surrounding the with ity mobility by of car some for the Supreme Court. The plurality a substantial number of officers. On its in Coolidge struck down the search of an face, then, mobility a case where of this is car unoccupied parked on private property, posed potential the car rather than a appeared to restrict Chambers to present exigency.3 valid Carroll i. preceded searches aby stop, e., to responds stopped moving The that once it is vehicles while Government conceded, concede, panel open as the did highway.7 plurality Another opinion, search, Coolidge rejected speculative, plurality 3. The in either course is reasonable under the exigencies potential based on mo- Fourth far-fetched Amendment. bility: Note, generally 5. See Warrantless Searches is, course, case, In this it true that even Automobiles, and Seizures of 87 Harv.L.Rev. Coolidge jail, though was in his was wife (1974). greater-lesser 845 intrusion away company plain- miles two analysis justify equiv- in used Chambers to clothesmen, Coolidge property and the alence of immobilization and immediate war- was. officers, guard under two other rantless been used some search has courts in automobile was a literal sense “mobile.” allowing as a basis warrantless searches of keys slip by mobility A who had the and could other have items deemed to character- guard away. See, g., Hand, We no could drive attach istics. e. United States v. 516 1975) significance (5th (en banc). constitutional to sort mo- F.2d 472 Such exten- bility. concept sions of should be undertaken with n.18, stoppage at care to assure that in each 403 U.S. 461 91 at 2035. case S.Ct. however, Mobility potential, magnitude is in an spawn movement fact intrusion of can equal to an immediate police warrantless search. See have situation if insufficient Note, generally Mobility Ex- manpower post guard Reconsidered: to as an assurance of tending Items, the Carroll Doctrine to Movable United States continued immobilization. See (1973). 58 L.Rev. Iowa 1134 Free, 141 v. However, 635 here the record re- Carroll, relying 6. This court with surfeit, shortage, veals a not officers only cursory paid issue, upheld attention to the investigation. involved unoccupied, parked of an search Unit Chambers, supra, at 4. 399 U.S. Cefaratti, U.S.App.D.C. 297, 1981: denied, (1952), F.2d 13 cert. purposes, no constitutional we see dif- (1953). Cefaratti, For S.Ct. L.Ed. 1343 seizing however, being on the one hand pre-Chambers, between Coolidge ference presenting probable Cardwell, holding controlling a car before is not here. magistrate and on the other issue to a n.20, Coolidge, supra, carrying search with- immediate out 403 U.S. at 463 hand & (emphasis original): cause to S.Ct. at 2036 Given warrant. out Coolidge plurality opinion This stated that Chambers directly on however, relied from Chambers because distinguishable unoc- of an seizure uphold Coolidge involved entry private property lot, parking public in a cupied in Chambers “the whereas (a driveway), any significance to attach refused public place was seized from automobile Card- stop. Carroll prior lack of meaningfully restrict access was where 583, 594, 94 S.Ct. Lewis, well 593, 94 at 2471.8 ed.” U.S. (1974): 2464, 2471, 41 L.Ed.2d acceptance independent of an Our car in Chambers exigency put forth fact that unnecessary to at highway, on a makes it being stopped Government after seized these di from a and reconcile tempt synthesize car was seized Lewis’ whereas and it is to that lot, little, opinions,9 any, legal vergent plurality if has parking public turn. now we other significance. State, Chambers, help plurality supra, to the claims that this is of no The Cardwell also that, only Coolidge plurality ground held where the that case was the on which since Chambers, may stop distinguished an automobile hard to and search a statement Carroll, they may it and also seize footnote 20 of read under reconcile with full, supra. it later at the station.20 take note that all of see note We concurring Coolidge plurality and dissent- comprising III—B of the Part the Justices dissented in Cardwell. note argues ing opinion emphasis Mr. Justice Black in foot- case must somehow be stop that this vehemence to be on the initial Carroll seems Maroney, Chambers, controlled Chambers the fact that the contrasted with 419, 1975, yet 42, unoccupied. S.Ct. Coolidge 90 was car While precise applicability never of Chambers is private proper- the car on the location of face, purports case, clear. On its Chambers Coolidge made to deal lice ty is set forth as a fact po- only in which the with situations not, identify overtly, fact least this as a does of crucial at may legitimately make a warrantless legal importance. States, Carroll v. United 267 search under 280, 132, 69 L.Ed. 543. Since 45 S.Ct. U.S. the per Supreme curiam in recent 9. The Court’s apply does not in the circum- Carroll rule 304, White, 67, 96 S.Ct. 46 Texas v. case, police this could not have stances of searched 209, (1975) 44 U.S.L.W. 3327 did L.Ed.2d the car without a warrant when Coolidge this needed reconciliation effect Coolidge. arrested Thus Mr. Justice Texas v. White reiterates and and Cardwell. argument must be that Chambers Black’s Chambers, ruling of that if an im- extends operated sub silentio to extend the somehow permissible, is a search at the scene mediate true that the basic doctrine of Carroll. It is search at stationhouse can be made later search of the automobile in Chambers actual a Since the case involved a without warrant. many police made at the station hours stopped, moving car that had been all Jus- high- stopped on the car had been after way, began premise with the that immediate tices movable, longer car was no when the permissi- at the scene would have been and, passed, any “exigent circumstances” had ble; validity of the their focus was on the shows, magis- the record there was a for all trate This is made clear search. stationhouse majority’s Nonetheless, easily available. the anal- following language reference to misleading. ogy The rationale to this case in Chambers: justified given initial is that a of Chambers intrusion, us, before the blue station the facts On there is little difference between spot wagon on the have been searched could open highway and a later search search stopped proba- since there was when it was Here, the station. we deal with the at ñeeting it to search and was ble cause question prior whether the initial intrusion probable-cause target for the search. purpose, justified. it seems abun- For this is dantly at the station house and still obtained factor significant thére is a consti- clear that mobility of the car unless the so did Fourth Amendment seizing, stopping, between tutional difference permits a warrantless highway, open searching car on the and entering private denial of its use to of the car and the seizure anyone property to seize and search is secured. until a warrant being unoccupied, parked vehicle not then 52, (emphasis at 1981 U.S. at 90 S.Ct. any illegal purpose. 399 That the for used may supplied). Marshall and Brennan were Justices legally property have been although course, contending is, “an immedi- that alone ate on-the-scene permissible,” immate- to arrest order rial, since, clearly text, supra, search . . was in II-A of the as shown 70, 306, 96 at 44 423 U.S. at S.Ct. purpose search of could not authorize that 3328, subsequent search had to v. Rabinow- U.S.L.W. United States car even under 430, justified. independently itz, 94 L.Ed. 653. 70 S.Ct.

583 Ellis, Cir.), (2d F.2d IV. denied, 93 S.Ct. cert. U.S. The case is within (1972). L.Ed.2d 115 Although governed this case is not text, the “hot though not spirit, Carroll “automobile by the exception” in Warden exception established pursuit” stopped highway, cars on a it present does Hayden, U.S. situation in which time was of the essence L.Ed.2d 782 practicable was “not to secure a Carroll, warrant.” We therefore hold that at 285. There proceed was need to as jus- case entails circumstances quickly as possible apprehend the robbers tify warrantless search of the car for who had used this as the getaway car in an clues as to identity suspects. or location of robbery armed bank consummated about an pertinent factors are much like those prior hour to the search. There strong set out by this court in Dorman v. United probable cause geta to believe this was the 313, 319-21, way car.10 Bank robbers known to have banc, (en 1970), showing F.2d 391-93 large, posing been armed were at current “urgent need” dangers to the and other citizens. nighttime entry private into a ef- home to An immediate search of the car could well Dorman, fect an arrest. As in we have a produce the information needed speedily offense; a grave showing clear apprehend the culprits. Delay to obtain a cause; suspects reasonable belief that warrant would have impeded a promising armed; suspects are a likelihood that police investigation conceivably provid escape will if not speedily apprehended, and ed the added time needed the bank rob peaceable entry. This case lacks the ele- bers Cf. Unit- ment of capture to avoid altogether. “strong reason to believe Chernoff, during F.2d In Haefeli v. fore or the search of the car did (1st 1975),the court found a

U.S.L.W.2302 warrantless search gent attempt warrant,” obtain or to obtain a supported by exi a car placing states that defendant’s items in the light analysis trunk as well as the interior of the locked In a footnote the court remarked Cardwell. privacy, automobile was an assertion of Brief exigent discussion of cir that the absence of 6, 21, Appellee argue he does not as a gave further in Texas v. White cumstances support separate contention that even if the search of The intention of the to its conclusion. permissible the interior on the street was later stationhouse search of the trunk should the event, any In we Haefeli footnote is not clear. v. White that there is see no indication in Texas be held invalid. Chambers and Texas v. White a in automobile never a need for warrant make it clear that if it is established that a long probable cause for a cases as as search search exists. We warrantless search of the car on the street was Supreme assume that if a permissible, independent objection there is no rule, majority to institute such a intends Court and so In United States Cr.L.Rep. to the warrantless search of the car trunk at depart prior approach, it will do to from its the stationhouse. by pronouncement express to all concerned. Mitchell, 525 F.2d suspicious 10. It was from the start that one of (5th 1976), invali the court occupants the car’s left a coat in the car and search, though dated a warrantless truck it was cause to search the van for contraband even general walked coatless into the rain. The probable undisputed there was descrip- of characteristics the car matched the (mari getaway tion of the vehicle contained in the juana), exigent circum because there were no “stop” radioed “lookout.” This warranted a court, Dyer, J., rejected per the stances. car, identify the and a call for a witness to the argument government’s that a warrant was not car. Once the witness from the scene of the automobiles, necessary ruled that in the case of robbery bank identified the automobile as the expansion” accept “radical it could not such a car, getaway being and the coat in the car as of Chambers, theory of Carroll and (blue) the same color the as a coat worn one of per exemption from that “there is no se held the warrant robbers, probable ripened to believe requirement for automobiles.” robbery. po- the vehicle was used in the validity present of case is the The issue coat, along lice could search the blue with oth- Although coun- the initial on-the-scene search. er items in the appellee subsequent seek clues as to the sta- refers to the sel for search, no time be- whereabouts of the robbers. notes that “[a]t tionhouse none of these Separately, factors is con- entered,”11 premises being the suspect is in clusive, together they taken identify in Dorman as stressed which was amply justifying the home entry suspect’s into the a warrantless conducting an immediate warrant- a But the case of arrest.12 an make getaway less car. search of expec- is both lesser car there on the street Our (see holding supported rulings in a home note is of than privacy of tation Shye, the Sixth Circuit in United States v. entry into car believed infra), IS (1973), 473 F.2d and United getaway cause to probable strong Beck, denied, cert. F.2d though suspect is even justified, car is 46 L.Ed.2d inside, clues get in order to now plainly not Shye also a warrantless of a involved search of apprehension aid location will robbery getaway Judge bank the suspect. opinion, joined by McCree’s Judges Ed- Cecil, wards and eschewed reliance on the expectation privacy for The lesser automobile, inherent mobility of which automobile, as contrasted with was in a lot in parking apart- back of an interior,13 particular signif building or Instead, ment premised house. the court very car whose func getaway to a icance existence of exceptional on “the highway in the public tion use the is to circumstances which because of the impera- Mandatory a crime. completing course tive of time obtaining prior judicial excuse distinctive registration and licensing and approval . . .” 473 F.2d at 1065. general aspects appearance size exceptional For the part, most circum- geta that a create a likelihood combine to Shye stances are the same cited as those way early in a crimi car will be discovered on by relied this court: the search occurred are still investigation when nal (two robbery hours); soon after may car getaway “hot” trail. apprehended bank robbers had not been nor and instrumentalities still contain fruits recovered; money the robbers were here, any crime, was the case and in armed; strong had repository of clues as likely to be event is cause to had believe discovered the and location of the criminals. identity to the case, getaway (as in based car on iden- sum, prompt In tification eye-witness of the car apprehending may crucial well be and immediate getaway); entrance into criminals, recovering the fruits of required the car to continue promis- ing police crime, investigation.14 other crimes. preventing building.” U.S.App.D.C. at at 393. or of 435 F.2d Almeida-Sanchez v. Unit- 266, 279, Brown, States v. In United (1973) (Powell,'J., con- (1972), this court curring). expectation a lesser One has entry support an arrest warrant will held that privacy in a motor vehicle because its funcr person, premises of a third not named into the transportation tion is and it seldom serves as warrant, if the officer has reasonable repository per- one’s residence or as the suspect present. A that the is to believe capacity sonal little effects. A car has for State, England contrary stated in v. view was scrutiny. escaping public public It travels (Okl.Crim.1971). diver- The 488 P.2d 1347 thoroughfares occupants its where both concurring gence in Justice Powell’s was noted plain its are in view. contents Watson, opinion States v. 423 U.S. in United developed thought A similar was in United 820, 598, 433, 46 44 96 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Free, 198, 202, U.S.App.D.C. States 141 (1976), together n.7 4118-19 U.S.L.W. F.2d that the Court there was the comment with Shye In who first the officers found the passing in which a home the circumstances getaway plate a license check instituted may to make arrest. be entered plates which that the had revealed been stolen. Cardwell, supra, 417 in the case at bar does not record reveal when, (who, precise etc.) at 2469: details check, plate license had in- but one been run be- an automobile is far less “The search (Tr. 23-4, 98). protected by rights fore the was conducted the Fourth search trusive registered was that the car than the search one’s check revealed Amendment matter, quite y. A different addressed not officers so much as to the Defendant’s claim that the investi responsible legal Police Chief and the offi- gative purposes of the police could have jurisdiction, the possibility cers in this is been equally well served the less intru sive emergency obtaining case of warrants means of staking out the car until a obtained, warrant could be would have mer testimony based on sworn oral communicat- it if we premised had exigency on mobility, means, by telephone appropriate or other see 580-583, supra, pp. when falters recording, with for procedures transcribing applied to the exigency on which we do certifying Develop- the statement. rely. The search here was conducted as a procedures ment of such would obviate the possible means of effecting the immediate troubling question need to wrestle with the resolution of an urgent situation. po police may rely of when the on the indeter- lice were expeditiously seeking identity exception permitting minate .and whereabouts of dangerous criminals exigency. message search in case of This who were not in the car.16 In Shye McGowan, recently by Judge voiced rejected Sixth Circuit the contention that language who noted that of neither the there was no urgency because the car was nor the Fourth Amendment Federal Rule of under guard and could not be moved. The incompatible Criminal Procedure court held inapplicable because it obtaining upon search warrants oral affida- “imperative agents for the to know by telephone.15 vits transmitted whether were on the heels of the cul prits.” Robinson, produc- comple- and the search cerned with to defendant local crimes to await the envelope process at an underway. addressed to Robinson ed an tion of the Federal by the from that disclosed address different Of course it would be for the local officials noteworthy plate This fact is license precisely ically predicted; check. and courts to make the authoritative determi- specif- procedure not have been because could nation whether the outlined above— high probability only there is a that the oral statement be not recorded produce car will some but also transcribed and certified—satisfies the though promptly pursued their to be even requirement 23-522(a), clues exact nature cannot be foreseen. § D.C. Code applications writing upon be made in oath or judicial affirmation to a officer. Johnson, 73-2221, 15. United No. is- 16. This stands in contrast to a situation in (panel dissent). Although sued June the police reasonably which the believe an offender panel opinion judgment were vacated room, apartment is in an or hotel and can banc, rehearing when the case was set for the en keep guard modest resources on him while suggestion copyrighted. Judge was not obtaining a warrant. That was the fact situa- suggestions McGowan’s are more refined than generated tion in the case that Justice Jack- procedure projected panel the oral in the dis- opinion son’s on the need for a warrant and a senting States, opinion in Dorman v. United magistrate’s neutral and detached determina- 5,May issued 1969. When Dorman was ar- of the cause tion for search. Johnson v. United banc, government gued counsel en advised States, 10, 14-15, 68 S.Ct. procedure possibility that being pursued the oral was not also, (1948); g., L.Ed. 436 see e. United States arrangements in view of new Jeffers, 96 L.Ed. magistrate availability. See Dorman v. United (1951) (officers prevented could have re- States, 313, 323-24, “by merely guarding moval of contraband door”); banc, But, (en 1970). 395-96 as the court Eng Fung Jem v. United may stated in Dorman—“Time reveal weak- (9th 1960). F.2d way point supplements nesses and program.” ripe The time seems for reconsider- supplement Shye ation of oral affidavits as a 17. 473 F.2d at 1064-65. Even if had is- procedures. Cardwell, current exigency approach sued after of Shye opinion would have made it noted, unneces- Judge pending there is As McGowan sary ponder for the court to whether under the proposed amendment to Rule 41 of the Federal Procedure, plurality already rationale of the approved Cardwell the location Rules Criminal Shye, lot, Conference, private parking governed in the rule for public parking the United States Judicial private explicitly procedure. driveways (Coolidge) sanction such But or would there is no need for jurisdiction, (Cardwell). the local con- lots 44 U.S.L.W. periods on short relied District Court (1975) require would us to sustain the conducting by the delay search, even in the exigency. absence of As the conclusion that to reach investigation I probable read Texas v. White “the cause justify existed no factor” would be decisive. The failure of the search. getaway spotted first who two officers occupants when interrogate the delay cited the District one

left the car is exigency. With all defer- to belie

Court investigative reasons ence, good are there specific await identifica- would

why police car, establishing proba- getaway tion of Major FAIRBANK, Appellant, John C. search, possi- when that is for the cause ble In our reasonably short time.18 ble within SCHLESINGER, Secretary James R. view, exigency continued after the state Defense, et al. of the automobile as positive identification Major PERRY, Appellant, William R. delay Ms. period second —between identification Leary’s positive OFFICER, COMMANDING minutes, only 15 of the car —was HEADQUARTERS, et al. to await the arrival of the purpose was its efficiency to maximize crime lab mobile 73-2136, Nos. 74-1287.* In a situation both serious handling clues.19 United States Court of Appeals, delay urgent, the brief District of Columbia Circuit. negatived urgency but one that was not steps prudently judgment reflected a Argued Sept. time a half at the outset would save taken Decided Dec. conduct is to be hour hence. investigative alertness rath- commended negativing at as a sense of picked

er than

urgency. Court, directing of the District

The order the evidence taken from suppression car, is reversed. ordered.

So

ROBB, TAMM Judge, with whom Circuit WILKEY, join (concur- Judges Circuit

ring): facts of this case I concur in

Given conclusion that

Judge Leventhal’s justified by of the

search was there was

situation. Since White, I think Texas

however suspects alighted from the 18. At the time tant await mobile crime lab in order to evidence the officers had little complication overlayed avoid the of added or knowledge interrogation, and no of the details (Tr. 21-22). prints by unspecialized officers robbery necessary any to make such interrogation meaningful. * Although argued 73-2136 and 74-1287 were 73-2136, together, only Fairbank v. Schlesin- boy enlisted to 19. The fact that a small ger, being opinion. decided in this impor- It was unlock the car is not material.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Vance E. Robinson

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Mar 8, 1976

Citation: 533 F.2d 578

Docket Number: 74-1778

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.