United States v. William Calvin Woods

counsel, has met requested with cused has BROWN, Before Chief Judge, THORN- to meet with coun- opportunity had the BERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINS- sel, then waives benefit of but who WORTH, GODBOLD, MORGAN, CLARK, counsel, permissible. waiver should RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, and from counsel at least suspect has benefitted RUBIN, Circuit Judges. making an informed waiver to the extent BY THE COURT: assistance. continued The sus- of counsel’s A member of the Court in active service opportunity of determin- pect has had having requested poll application himself, counsel’s ing, prospective' for rehearing en banc and a majority of the suspect determines worth. If the that fur- judges in having active service voted in counsel unnecessary, ther assistance favor of banc, granting rehearing en give law effect to that choice. should be forced on Again, lawyer cannot a sus- IT IS ORDERED that the cause shall be pect. reheard en by Court banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. per se rule only compelled Not is the The Clerk will specify briefing schedule authority, its use would facilitate the work for the filing of supplemental briefs. the courts by providing certainty very juncture at a sensitive in the process.

criminal rule should not be

abandoned. Even does refuse recog- if the Court America, UNITED STATES of applicability per nize the of a se rule Plaintiff-Appellee, case, against present waiver in the clear unmistakable waiver has not been proved. on the government burden rests WOODS, William Calvin prove waiver and burden is “heavy.” Defendant-Appellant. Arizona, Miranda v. 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The purpose of No. 76-4179. Miranda was to minimize the use of official United States Court of Appeals, psychological in interrogation. coercion Fifth Circuit. psychological certainly Such coercion is Indeed, present in this case. implied Files Oct. that Nash would lose some advantage if an 3, 1977. Rehearing Denied Nov. attorney was appointed: Well, I Files: can talk about to,

you and I like you want well,

lawyer, off, am I going to hold you. your

can’t talk to It’s life.

From the rest transcript, it is evident only the suspect equivocal and concerning

confused rights his but also that engaged type official of subtle

coercion that was condemned in both Mi-

randa and Priest. Under the circumstanc-

es, impossible to hold that the it would be clear, proving

heavy unmistak- burden

able The district court waiver was carried.

should be affirmed.

Doyle F. Chaney (Court-Appointed), Fred Blanton, Ala., Birmingham, for defendant- appellant. Brooks,

J. R. U. Atty., Shirley S. I. McCarty, Asst. Atty., Birmingham, U. S. Ala., plaintiff-appellee. FAY, and, Circuit rel as he up, rose

Before GOLDBERG he observed the stock DUMBAULD, Judge.* cabinet, District Judges, top on the shelf the doors of open. which were After call- Judge: FAY, Circuit ing for detective who shortly arrived thereafter, left residence, appellant, William Calvin juryA found leaving the detective there with the Woods, shot- possessing unregistered guilty gun. The officers and Brenda 5861(d).1 Jones went of 26 § in violation U.S.C. bakery to a appellant where trial, supposedly the Prior commencement of but they worked did find They him. appellant suppress motion to as evi- filed returned to the residence and shotgun described in the indict- seized the dence the shotgun. motion, of that based on ment. The denial doctrine, “plain the view” inspired ap- this Appellant’s version the facts varies peal. We affirm. slightly with government’s the version stat- ed above. Outside the presence of the jury, THE FACTS Brenda Jones testified that she was in the bathroom when the officers knocked but testimony The by government offered nothing, said and peeped when she out from at suppression hearing reveals bedroom, her to told come out. morning county two depu- 8:30 one sheriff’s They asked for Calvin and told her open to ties went residence to execute appellant’s to the back bedroom They door. looked Marshall, an arrest for Calvin warrant house, including behind a cabi- appellant.2 alias officer by used One net in the dining room. Finding what residence, door of knocked on the but no pipe, looked like a the officer pulled the one As the answered. officer knocked a away wall, cabinet from the opened the time, door sprang open. second Both inside, doors cabinet and finding looked residence, entered the an- officers then stock to the themselves, looking nounced and started Jones, appel- Mr. Marshall Brenda THE ISSUES roommate, came lant’s out from the back of the house.3 officers see Mar- asked to to government’s conten- shall and Ms. Jones led them to the back tion that properly officers were bedroom and then bathroom. Not find- and house their the shotgun seizure of prop- ing either place, Marshall in the officers the “plain doctrine, er under view” appel- began looking for him in the other rooms. lant contends that the officers’ entry into Upon entering room between the kitchen the house was not with consent of the room, living and the officer observed occupant and thus the officers did not have one. were; three to inches of a shotgun four to be where they that there from protruding out under the front of a accompanying was no arrest to house;4 cabinet. He down to bent retrieve bar- * Judge appellant battery District Western District of Penn- with assault and of one Bern- sylvania, sitting by designation. surrounding ice Thomas. The circumstances the arrest warrant are irrelevant to the instant actually charged people, 1. The indictment three case, except executing the fact that this arrest Marshall, Bethune, appel- Cedric Charles and purpose going the officers’ lant, aiding abetting with each other appellant’s morning they residence on that barrel, knowing possession single of a sawed- unregistered gun. found the length off a barrel of less than 18 inches, registered not been which had them. 3. record is unclear as to whether Brenda trial, During granted the court a motion of appellant, was the Jones wife of but it is clear jury acquittal as to Charles Bethune. The re- that she lived in the same house. guilty turned a verdict of not as Cedric Marshall. day, 4. The officers never did find was not and it until three months later that he county attempting were was found and arrested. charging execute a state-issued arrest warrant Although by the barrel the facts related since applicable doctrine was not in fact or officer by the observed from the facts officers differ described exigent and that shotgun; appearance witness, Jones, appellant’s Brenda credibili to excuse existed ty conflicting choices and the resolution of warrant. a search obtaining from testimony province are within the hearing, the trial conducting a fact, instance, court, finder of this suppress, motion to denied court subject only clearly erroneous rule. stating: Hodgson Seafoods, Morgan v. H. Daniel Officer suppress is denied. The motion Inc., 918,920 (5th 1970). 433 F.2d Cir. Simi affirmative with testimony was Thomas’ larly, the trial court’s of fact on a At most there open view. respect to suppress accepted motion to must be unless by this wit- contradiction minor is some Griffin, clearly erroneous. United respect in no direct of that ness 1977); 555 F.2d pro- have been seen it could denial James, 999,1018 (5th v. 528 F.2d Cir. States is, part from the the barrel truding, that 1976), denied, States, Henry cert. v. United The fact that cabinet. of the part lower 959, 382, 429 U.S. 97 50 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 326 the over whether doors dispute is a there (1976); Horton, United States v. 488 F.2d the receiver where the cabinet 374, (5th denied, not, 380 Cir. cert. 416 the Court does open were [was] 993, 2405, to the issue. to be credible U.S. 94 40 L.Ed.2d 772 not view S.Ct. the witness’ example, accept, for Gunn, could (1974); United States v. 428 F.2d closed, being of the door description 1057, (5th 1970). 1060 Cir. See also 3 open in end was seen barrel once the Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure by view, testimony given Officer then the 675, (1969). found, judge at 130 The trial § witness by and this Thomas hearing after evidence on the motion to opening of the opinion the the Court’s suppress, part that at least the barrel portion of that the other itself for door open plain view. gun was in the officer’s weapon. record, reviewing the we are unable say finding clearly that this erroneous. DISCUSSION “A erroneous when al finding clearly view shotgun fell within If the it, though support there is evidence to right a to be they had officers and reviewing court on the entire evidence is view, had they were where left with a definite and firm conviction that subject to seizure and shotgun was then the a mistake has been committed.” United into evidence. Cool introduced properly Co., Gypsum 333 United States 443, Hampshire, 403 U.S. 91 New idge v. 525, 542, 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. 746 U.S. (1971);5 Harris 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d (1948). shotgun Thus the 234, 992, States, 390 88 S.Ct. U.S. v. United view shall not be disturbed. (1968). L.Ed.2d 1067 belonging robbery Coolidge, Supreme card victim. The offi- observed: Court 5. In station, brought cer returned to the defend- ‘plain have in common view’ cases What the car, the defendant ant and confronted in each of them had officer is that registration justification with the card. The defendant dis- prior in the for an intrusion a inadvertently any knowledge across offi- he came claimed of the card. The course of which incriminating brought piece ac- it into the of evidence cer seized the card and a then 466, Despite 91 S.Ct. at 2038. 403 U.S. at contention on cused. station. the defendant’s illegal appeal card was the result of an that the officer, Harris, arresting without after seizure, Supreme the de- Court affirmed warrant, impounded vehicle and a searched conviction, long stating: “It has been fendant’s it, by police tag required property a on as a tied objects falling settled that proceeded regulation, department then he position to be in the who has officer in order lock the doors and close the windows subject to seizure and that view are to have As he protect car and its contents. 234, in evidence”. 390 U.S. be introduced passenger in order opened side door on the 236, side, L.Ed'2d 1067. 88 S.Ct. he window on that the door and to secure registration plain view the automobile saw in knowledge There is some discussion the record and that without of nonregistra- recogni- appeal the officer’s regarding tion the officers could not lawfully seize shotgun gun tion of the barrel as a and arrest the defendant. The was not Appellant argument specious. barrel. contends that it Without knowing to Cool- “immediately apparent” (referring gun the serial number of the S.Ct. at idge, supra, registration, could check and without Drew, measuring it they States v. F.2d could determine its 1971)) length. Two the observed officers testified that contraband, appeared just to be a object shotgun. that it could as sawed-off Subsequent investigation barrel easily pipe, have been and that the revealed that was within the officer class by by itself was not defined 5845(a) 26 U.S.C. and was not regis- § testified that saw the barrel he tered. protruding out from under the front cabinet, having

small the cabinet some The observation of the gave proba- approxi- being drawers and shelves and ble cause for the reasonable belief that a crime, mately height three four feet possession of a contraband cross-examination, firearm, legs. twelve inch On was being committed in the the witness conceded that could presence . officers. . .We have been for a pipe mistaken he know of no rule requires an officer determined it was sawed-off knowledge to have of all the elements of pulling it out from under the cabinet. the crime when he views an article which reasonably appears to be contraband. A por- The record reflects that the barrel that an officer must know tion of the found under the cabinet of nonregistration the fact before seizing length measured 14V4inches with the total a contraband firearm would stultify the gun measuring Chapter YlViinches. enforcement of the National Firearms 26, U.S.C., prohibits Title possession Act. We are convinced that the trial any of unregistered shotgun with barrel properly court denied the motion sup- to of length less than 18 inches and an overall press and properly received the gun in Id., of less than inches. 5845 and §§ evidence. 457 F.2d 1180-81. Perhaps if cabinet had been ex- traordinarily deep (measuring to back front Simply because the officer in the instant since the was seen protruding barrel out case stated that the barrel “could have been front), might from the it be more difficult a pipe mistaken” as doesn’t mean that he impossible to know for that sure it as mistook such. experience Based his observed was legally less than the knowledge and he thought when he first permissible However, length. minimum saw it that the protruding object was a there in suggest is no evidence the record barrel, shotgun of less than the required that this problem present in instant length, just and indeed it was that when he case. pulled it out. There is no evidence in the record contradict or diminish the reason- Cecil, in United of ableness the officer’s belief that the ob- 457 F.2d raised a simi- ject gun barrel, awas and that the barrel argument lar challenging the denial was contraband. suppress of his motion shot- sawed-off seized in view. The fact weapon that the was in two contention pieces when found is immaterial considering knowing could not seize his without only a minimum of required effort was certain that was unregistered it and too it operable. to make United States v. Ca short, the observed: court tanzaro, 368 F.Supp. (D.C.Conn.1973). argues nonregistration Defendant is The officer demonstrated at trial the ease ingredient an essential of the offense of with the weapon which could be connected. possession aof sawed-off and shotgun 5861(d) provides pertinent U.S.C. § pos- properly receive or The test is unlawful “to framed in terms of that it is part registered is not which reasonable belief. Probable cause a firearm is es- sess Registration sentially reasonableness, a concept Firearms in the National him Record,” it has and U.S.C.A. become a term of art in that it Transfer and must determined always magis- “firearm” as used be 5845(a) states that § “shotgun having exigent a barrel trate unless includes excuse Act length.” inches in a warrant. . . . Reasonable less than 18 belief or barrels 5845(d) embodies the same standards defines of reasona- § Title U.S.C.A. officer, bleness but allows the who has as follows: already magistrate been to the to secure weapon means a de- ‘shotgun’ term warrant, an arrest to determine that the remade, made or redesigned, or signed suspect probably premis- within certain to be fired from the shoul- and intended es without trip mag- an additional and made designed redesigned der and exigent istrate and without circumstanc- energy explo- remade to use . . es. reasonableness of shotgun shell to fire in a fixed sive judgment always subject officer’s bore either a number smooth review, judicial of course. shot) [Citations (ball single pro- or a projectiles footnote 545 F.2d at 421. trigger, omitted]. jectile pull for each weapon include such shall In Rodriguez, supra, quoted this Court fire a fixed readily restored to be Restatement, Second, Torts 204 when § added.) (Emphasis shell. stating: privilege “The to make an arrest for a 5845(d) specify does not Section applies. privi- criminal offense carries with it the must be assembled before parts capable lege possession to enter land in the question The firearm purpose making restored to fire a fixed shot- another for the such being “readily arrest, shell,” person sought if the to be and to reason otherwise arrested is on the land or if the very purpose defeat actor to frustrate or him Thus, reasonably view deter- believes to be there.” of the statute. F.2d at 605-06. of the shot- ratify will the seizure mination as evidence if the admissibility its gun and Although there is no indication in the rec- right appellant’s a to be in officers had ord that the officers had reason to know residence.7 appellant whether would be at his home they went there to execute the arrest reveals that the offi The record warrant, anticipa- we find it a reasonable residence initially appellant’s went to cers part to believe that a tion on the officers’ appel for to execute a warrant in order abode, place espe- would be at his person imag Although arrest. it strains our lant’s morning a man cially at 8:30 in the for not “sprang front door to think the ination (the working officers were not known to be itself, recognizes that an the law open” worked until Brenda aware warrant is an execute an arrest entry to them). person The fact that the Jones told of a search to the exception in the house did not render sought was not a to intrude into home. United entry require suppression invalid nor Cravero, 406, (5th F.2d 421 v. 545 while in view. the evidence seized James, 1976); supra, v. United States Cir. James, supra, v. 528 F.2d at United States 1017; Jones, Rodriguez v. 473 F.2d at 1017, Hofman, citing United States 599, (5th cert. 605-06 Cir. F.2d (5th 1974). F.2d 287 Cir. 3023, denied, 412 U.S. S.Ct. Cravero, recognize that James and Confirming this as the law We L.Ed.2d Circuit, Rogriguez entering concerned officers this Court in Cravero the Fifth in an effort property party of a third noted: judge’s determination. See the trial court’s was also receiver 7. Whether or not the motion, quoted denying in text. statement not have altered view would person walking be- through warrant for execute an arrest house to look ap- contrast, property. pellant; to be it was not lieved intended to any uncover entering ease officers the instant involves evidence of criminal violations. Inadvert- subject of the property of the arrest ently the officer discovered the sawed-off see any We do not cause for warrant. plainly which was visible to him as and, distinction, however, anything, if through he walked room. party’s property a third intrusion onto the officers discovered the possible seem to be a more Fourth shotgun, they called detective to remain infringement. Amendment We course they at house while and Brenda Jones here referring are officers to went to the bakery looking for appellant. attempt in an an satisfy enter house Swight Detective Tom arrived at the house warrant; we not an sanctioning arrest are Jones, before the officers left with Ms. unlimited, general exploratory search of he remained inside the house they until Nevertheless, might some search premises. returned.9 The record does indicate necessary: objective “While the ultimate precisely how long gone, officers were arrest, entry of an arrest the arrest clear that directly drove subject only can be effected if the is first and, bakery not finding appellant, returned a necessary and thus a search is found directly to his Upon residence. their return prerequisite possible factual arrest.” seized F.2d at 416. A limited search incidental Thus from the relatively brief time the permissible. to an arrest also Chimel v. officers first appellant’s entered California, house seizure, the time of the (1969); L.Ed.2d 685 Ed- States v. was under the wards, continuous 1977). custody 554 F.2d 1331 Ex- and ob- police present servation of cept parameters, however, authority within these inside dwelling. particular Under these arrest warrant substitute for a cir- cumstances, search warrant. view sighting of the shotgun and its seizure fell legit- within the Once the legally officers were in scope single imate of a brief intrusion into residence, they side asked Brenda Jones home, justified an intrusion appellant. to show them to She led them to order to execute the arrest warrant. We bathroom, the back bedroom and then the are thus not confronted with a situation in although we now know he as wasn’t there. leave a house and must appears It from the record subsequent, separate entry. warrantless looking then continued various rooms. We opinion decline forecast our on a There is no evidence that Brenda Jones delayed plain view reaction of several hours time asked them to or she leave days, and leave that situation for when it any way. felt coerced intimidated in presents itself. impliedly actions Brenda Jones actually voluntary Having not indicated her consent concluded that the trial court did house,8 including to the search err the shotgun plain view, room in which the cabinet was located. and further that the officers had a The extent of the primarily “search” was they be where were when Consent, freely voluntarily given, justi- clearly 9. The record does not establish that the fies a along trip warrantless search. See United States v. officers took Ms. Jones on their Horton, 374, bakery F.2d 488 381 or that the detective was continu- ously cases cited therein. While the record is not in the house from the time the officers jointly return, clear as to whether Brenda Jones owned left their but defense counsel searched, dispute facts, the house that was clear that she does not these which were not at living suppression was there at the time and therefore could issue as the motion was formulat- Cupp, question authorize the Frazier v. 394 search. ed. to a direct at oral 740, 731, 1420, argument, appellate conferring U.S. 89 22 684 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d counsel after (1969). with trial counsel conceded that this account of the events accurate.

667 view, Bustamonte, plain 218, we af- Schneckloth v. 412 observed U.S. 219, 2041, 93 36 L.Ed.2d (1973), S.Ct. appellant’s the denial of motion to firm States, quoting 347, Katz v. United 389 U.S. suppress. 357, 507, 19 (1967). 88 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 576 AFFIRMED. also United States v. United See

District Court for Eastern District of Michi- 297, 314-18, GOLDBERG, Judge, dissenting: gan, 2125, Circuit U.S. S.Ct. (1972); Louisiana, Vale v. L.Ed.2d 752 respectfully My disagreement dissent. I 1969, U.S. L.Ed.2d 409 portion of the receiver relates to seizure California, (1970); Chimel the cabinet below from 760-62, (1969); 89 S.Ct. 23 L.Ed.2d 685 majority’s The barrel was discovered. Amsterdam, Perspectives on the Fourth two means one of approval of this seizure Amendment, 58 Minn.L.Rev. concluded majority may have things. (1974). that open. While the cabinet door was that The officers here acted without a war- stock discovery of the bring fact rant. Thus the initial entry doc- view protection within the residence, as well as the sightings of the trine, expressly court declined the district receiver, barrel and the must each be evidentiary dispute regarding resolve the justified by exception reference to an assump- and acted on the the cabinet door requirement. had been closed. tion that the door agree I entry officers’ initial leap so from the contrary certainly does not appellant’s home in order to execute the appellate fact-find- record as to merit cold warrant for his arrest was lawful. A rea- ing. sonable belief that appellant was inside the opinion occasionally its Alternatively, as dwelling was prerequisite of course a feel that majority may suggests, entry. majority lawful As the carefully justified not- cabinet was from the seizure notes, could reasonably expect If this be withstanding that it was closed. appellant, whom they had no cause to be- disagree. Ap- theory, vigorously I must employed, lieve was to be at his home at the seizure of the receiver proval of 8:30 a. m. day. on week a closed cabinet would from Moreover, agree the plain view sighting view of evi- signify that a protects doctrine sighting of the short- legitimates subsequent warrantless dence ened protruding from beneath for private places other evidence dining room cabinet. The officers dis- necessarily expect to be in the one would covered the barrel passing through while sighted. of that first At least proximity house; each room of the the discovery was exigency compels subsequent where legitimate scope within the of a search for here, can find such exploration, and I none subject of an arrest warrant. Given the wholly unsupported and un- proposition justification, the issue of Brenda supportable. Jones’s consent is irrelevant. Those com- majority opinion ments suggesting she portions consented to of the search I. are therefore unnecessary holding. to its starting point analysis appel- add, however, I must any suggestion require repeating: lant’s claims should of consent is unfounded. The district court It is well settled under the Fourth and finding, made no such and the record could Fourteenth Amendments that support Accepting not one. the testimony upon without a warrant issued conducted government, the offered the officers had probable per cause ‘is se unreasonable proceeded entered and with their search to subject only specifical- . to a few meeting the center of the house before Ms. excep- established and well-delineated ly Jones. The officers announced that purpose tions.’ were in the house for the of serv- cabinet appellant. open, In such cir- was its conclusion ing the warrant that the where the cumstances, certainly issue discovery of was the stock within the offi- undeveloped as it is in this of consent is as cer’s plain legally view is sound. Such record, Bumper v. North language the however, assumption, factual would be er- Carolina, 88 S.Ct. ror. (1968), governs: 20 L.Ed.2d may The majority indeed have accepted officer claims law enforcement When a assumption closed, the the that cabinet was a home under a war- authority to search joined the court’s opinion district that in effect that the occu- rant he announces searching so, it was constitutional. If it to resist the search. has no pant explanation apparent offers no for its belief instinct with coercion— The situation is that the plain sighting view of the barrel coercion. Where colorably albeit lawful permitted a warrantless search of a closed can there be no consent. there is coercion cabinet for the receiver. Nor does it offer agree I the Accordingly, while dis- limitations on “search for related covery gun proper of the barrel was under holding evidence” rationale that such a major- on which the plain view doctrine imply. relies, ity reject suggestions I chiefly The question may simply put: have consented por- that Ms. Jones few, of the exceptions narrow to the fourth repeat tions of the search. those amendment’s justified unnecessary suggestions are to the court’s the officer’s opening dining room cabi- holding. net? Discovery gun barrel admitted- provided ly probable cause to believe that II. gun lay remainder of the somewhere My with the majority concurrence must nearby. probable Yet cause to believe that with the regrettably terminate place contraband is in a particular protected discovery barrel. by the fourth amendment is never suffi- floor, discovering that barrel on the standing cient alone excuse the warrant the officer located the remainder of the requirement. in a cabinet above. district court did view doctrine cannot save the not attempt to resolve conflict in the search of the cabinet. Retrieving testimony whether regarding the cabinet barrel from beneath cabinet did not Rather, open. was court below as- open. cause the door to Under the facts opined sumed that it was closed but by court, assumed the officer open had to justified discovery opening closed cabinet to discover the receiver. for the cabinet to search remainder. cause, Probable even certain knowledge, opinion distressingly This court’s silent that contraband lies behind closed doors majority quotes on this issue. While the does not endow a law enforcement official portion district court’s denial of x-ray vision. discovery in which suppression expressly motion it barrel did provide not the officer with closed, door assumed cabinet had been “plain view”, literally legally, of the re- majority ante at also mentions ceiver within Upon delving the cabinet. “that cabinets, into closed the peripatetics of the Ante, added). view” at 663. (emphasis officers assumed a license that the fourth implies To the a finding extent this that the amendment does not tolerate. The search cabinet that contained receiver was kaleidoscopic, microscopic. The ob- open, the district overstates court. ject was unseen unplainly even Moreover, appellate there is basis for viewed. resolution from the cold record of the square government conflict in Nor were exigent present and defense testimony on If the majority this issue. has the cabinet search. Without the indulged assumption inoperable. Moreover, in the factual that the barrel the gun was could not justified to fear the house alone have particular no reason a had disposal the rest of entry of warrantless the home and a concealment search left to search closets, the house gun. When cabinets and so the officer’s left the appellant, for upon discovery further belief reasonable bar- The surveillance. a detective’s gun weapon under lay rel that the remainder of the might managed to have risk that a nearby provided basis for warrantless from gun and remove the the house enter search of areas of the house not within the is far too observation the scene without officer’s view. The officer who circum- exigent to constitute speculative warrantless before a closed cabinet stands to justify a warrantless stances sufficient same as one occupies legal position who not to search, the warrant outside a home. However remains certain war- meaning. of all Search stripped within, knowledge of his contraband he obsolescence, way be on their to may rants only upon magistrate’s may search a autho- becoming “exigent circumstances” fast with exigent to rization or circum- empty an in the more than incantation little Here there was neither. No stances. other Yet cases. of fourth amendment lexicon exception established the warrant re- in the erosion chapter tomorrow’s whatever protected the search of the cabi- quirement war- today a liberty rights, and cherished majority net. The has articulated no rea- exigent is still truly rant or exception, new nor have I son for a found compulsory. one. Without view or other ex- re- exception to the warrant No other ception, we have fourth amendment viola- remotely applicable, even quirements seems Suppression stock is the only tion. Perhaps majority offers none.1 and the result. tenable majority court and the both the district respectfully dissent. uphold the constrained to here feel proximity because of its cabinet search time Neither place. barrel in however,

measure, provides qualitative limiting for quantitative basis

intelligible approved today. What of search type one in today’s from distinguish case yield the cabinet

which the first does so the continues gun, rest of SONS, INC., A. DUDA & or the desk of drawers chest Plaintiff-Appellee, majority Surely the upstairs? bedroom such a warrantless search recognize Nonetheless, America, to be unconstitutional. UNITED STATES hold- apparent implications of its uncertain Defendant-Appellant. troubling. ing are No. 75-2546. law en- permits plain view doctrine Appeals, United States Court eyes their officers full use of forcement Fifth Circuit. to be. the officers have places is that difficulty today’s decision Oct. 1977. gave discovery never “right home probable cabinet. Just as be” inside the inside unregistered

cause to believe quarrel; could to the extent it is intend- majority v. Ca- no one does cite tanzaro, F.Supp. (D.Conn.1973), cabinet search for the ed to closed however, part gun, case second proposition fact statutory inapposite. pieces not remove it from did two proposition With definition

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. William Calvin Woods

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 3, 1977

Citation: 560 F.2d 660

Docket Number: 76-4179

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.