Document: 399 U.S. 42 90 S.Ct. 1975 26 L.Ed.2d 419 Frank CHAMBERS, Petitioner,v.James F. MARONEY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution. No. 830. Argued April 27, 1970. Decided June 22, Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, See 91 23. Vincent J. Grogan, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner. Carol Mary Los, respondent, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion 1 The principal question in this case concerns admissibility evidence seized from an automobile, which petitioner was riding at time his arrest, after automobile taken to a police station and there thoroughly searched without warrant. Court Appeals Third Circuit found no violation petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights. We affirm. 2 * During night May 20, 1963, Gulf service North Braddock, Pennsylvania, robbed two men, each whom carried displayed gun. robbers took currency cash register; attendant, one Stephen Kovacich, directed place coins right-hand glove, then robbers. Two teen-agers, who had earlier noticed blue compact wagon circling block vicinity station, saw speed away parking lot close station. About same time, they learned that been robbed. They reported police, arrived immediately, four men were wearing green sweater. Kovacich told him sweater other trench coat. A description car broadcast over radio. Within hour, light answering carrying stopped about miles Petitioner wagon. He coat car. occupants arrested driven In course thorough search concealed compartment under dashboard .38 caliber revolvers (one loaded with dumdum bullets), glove containing small change, certain cards bearing name Raymond Havicon, attendant Boron McKeesport, gunpoint on 13, 1963. warrant-authorized home day .38-caliber ammunition, including some bullets similar those guns 3 indicted both robberies.1 His first trial ended mistrial but he convicted robberies second trial. Both Havicon identified as robbers.2 materials introduced into evidence, identifying 13 robbery. house also objections counsel.3 sentenced term eight years' imprisonment robbery seven 20 robbery, sentences run consecutively.4 did not take direct appeal these convictions. 1965, sought writ habeas corpus state court, denied brief evidentiary hearing; denial affirmed Pennsylvania appellate courts. Habeas proceedings commenced United States District Western Pennsylvania. An order show cause issued. Based State's response court record, petition hearing. affirmed, 408 F.2d 1186 we granted certiorari, 396 900, 225, 24 177 (1969).5 II 4 pass quickly claim fruit unlawful arrest. courts below thought arresting officers probable make agree. Having talked teen-age observers victim ample stop arrest occupants, car.6 5 Even so, produced incriminating made cannot be justified incident arrest: 'Once accused is custody, another place, warrant, simply arrest.' Preston v. States, 376 364, 367, 84 881, 883, 11 777 (1964). Dyke Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 216, 88 1472, 538 (1968), effect; reasons have sufficient justify warrantless searches out connection longer obtain when safely custody house. 6 There are, however alternative grounds arguably justifying case. Preston, supra, vagrancy; it apparent believe crime auto. Dyke, expressly rejected suggestion car, U.S., 221—222, 1475—1476. Here situation different, robbers, fruits crime, fled scene would As correctly held, stopped; just obviously stolen money. 7 terms circumstances search, has long distinguished between or office. Carroll 267 132, 45 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), issue contraband liquor highway. After surveying law adoption onward, held automobiles conveyances may warrant office, provided contains articles are entitled seize. expressed its holding follows: 8 'We somewhat extended reference statutes guaranty freedom unreasonable seizures construed, practically since beginning government, recognizing necessary difference store, dwelling house, structure respect proper official readily obtained ship, motor boat, wagon, goods, where practicable secure because vehicle can moved locality jurisdiction must sought. 9 'Having thus established goods illegally transported come now consider what such made. (T)hose lawfully within country, use public highways, right free passage interruption unless known competent official, authorized believing their vehicles illegal merchandise. 10 'The measure legality seizure is, therefore, seizing officer shall reasonable stops seizes therein being transported.' 153—154, 155-156, 285 286. noted auto proceeds theory wholly different 12 validity dependent belief contents offend against law.' 158—159, 287. Finding before it, 14 followed applied Husty 282 694, 51 240, 75 629 (1931), Scher 305 251, 59 174, 83 151 (1938). It reaffirmed Brinegar 338 160, 1302, 93 1879 (1949). 1964, cited approval, 366—367, 882—883. Cooper California, 386 58, 87 788, 17 730 (1967),7 read dealing primarily proposition mobility 'although result might opposite home, fixed piece property.' 59, 790. Court's 221, 1475, recognized '(a)utomobiles, mobility, upon facts residence office,' citing Carroll, supra. However, insufficient reason involved case, reach whether cases 'extend based cause, which, having originally highway, parked outside courthouse.' 222, 1476.8 15 Neither nor require suggest every conceivable circumstance even extra protection privacy affords. But furnish particular most often unforeseeable; moreover, opportunity fleeting movable. Where true, us now, if effective any either immediately itself whatever period search.9 16 enforcing Amendment's prohibition seizures, insisted minimum requirement permitted Constitution. general rule, required judgment magistrate probable-cause issuance Only exigent will serve authorization search. holds unnecessary highway; movable, alerted, car's never again obtained. Hence immediate constitutionally permissible. Arguably, preference magistrate's judgment, only immobilization should until obtained; arguably, 'lesser' intrusion permissible authorizes 'greater.' 'greater' debatable answer depend variety circumstances. For constitutional purposes, see hand presenting Given Amendment. 18 On us, could spot target factor still so permits anyone secured. event little choose practical consequences obtained.10 follow unforeseeable Compare Vale Louisiana, ante, 30, 1969, 409. purposes houses cars. III 19 remaining contentions warrants reversal Appeals. One them challenges ammunition relevant confused, involving do questions lost procedure challenging seized. Appeals, however, careful examination error admitting harmless beyond doubt. ourselves studied prepared differ below. Harrington 395 250, 89 1726, 23 284 (1969). final afforded assistance counsel. pertinent these: Legal Aid Society Allegheny County appointed represent prior representative society conferred petitioner, member staff, Middleman, appeared adequately represented fully difficulty arises Apparently few minutes began. attorney Middleman Tamburo, attorney. No charge Tamburo incompetent inexperienced; rather appearance belated furnished legal Without granting hearing, claim. dealt matter extensive opinion. carefully examining resulted prejudice unprepared centered around allegedly inadequate efforts excluded evidence. admission ruled admissible substitution counsel substantial basis.11 posture inclined disturb record shows adequacy Unquestionably, effort effect early appointments all cases. disposed fashion per se rule requiring conviction following tardy appointment hold that, whenever alleges appointment, hearing determine defendant reached denying 21 Affirmed. 22 BLACKMUN part consideration decision STEWART, concurring. I adhere view acquired alleged standards ground collateral attack otherwise valid criminal conviction, federal. Harris Nelson, 394 286, 307, 1082, 1094—1095, 281 (dissenting opinion); Kaufman 217, 242, 1068, 227 opinion). adopts view, regard myself obligated merits Fourteenth claims kind. Upon premise join 25 HARLAN, concurring dissenting part. find disagreement disposition respects. 27 casual treatment presented parties major case: received ineffective acknowledges, met counsel, en route courtroom morning Although trial, apparently neither else interval trials. Because petition, indication extent consulted previous attorney, attorneys defendants, files Society. What does disclose essentially combination factors: entry handling issues arose during trial.1 28 respondent concede, counsel's last-minute precluded compliance motions suppress assuming acquaintance know arguments worth making. Furthermore, suggests virtually acquaintance. 29 objection objects although questionable standards, infra. 30 Second, prosecution offered defense objected admission, manner suggested stranger While indicated exclusion, excluded, asserted irrelevance.2 Later renewed basis inadequacy stating, 'I didn't thing Warrant morning.' App. 130.3 31 Third, witness in-court identification man threatened gun robberies, asked cross-examination settle strategy stand. whether, pretrial lineup, detective 'was gun.' Havicon's negative answer, colloquy ensued: 32 'THE COURT: you able disprove you? 33 'MR. TAMBURO: What? 34 You shouldn't ask contradict him. 35 defendant's testimony. 36 Disprove way all. 37 MEANS (the prosecutor): don't understand how detectives 38 said going defendant, that's right, go ahead.' 34. 39 next present testified pick out. Petitioner's cross-examine, 40 late necessitated scrutiny effectiveness representation, prejudiced counsel' belatedly raised conviction. 1186, 1196. agree strength search-and-seizure element considered assessment defense, relevance disappears conclusion invalidate 41 This ago duty provide 'is discharged assignment preclude giving aid preparation case.' Powell Alabama, 287 45, 71, 53 55, 65, 77 158 (1932); Hawk Olson, 326 271, 278, 66 116, 322, 61 (1945). 'the Constitution nowhere specifies intervene trial,' confer, consult prepare convert sham nothing more than formal Constitution's given counsel.' Avery 308 444, 446, 60 321, 377 (1940). 43 plan effectively 44 seems me reveals tenor government coupled called exploration dismissed. Such ascertaining undertake send knowledge render incapable affording client adequate representation. turn, mere missteps omissions caused negligence, cf. McMann Richardson, 397 759, 1441, 763 (1970), evaluation total picture, objective determining deprived rudimentary assistance. Williams Beto, 354 698 (C.A.5th Cir. 1965). And, course, confined three episodes my opinion, triggered necessity reviewing conclude failed fact assistance, prevailed Glasser 315 60, 75—76, 62 457, 467, 86 680 (1942); White Maryland, 373 1050, 193 (1963); Reynolds Cochran, 365 525, 530—533, 81 723, 726—727, 754 (1961). Further inquiry show, protect interests,4 did, raise doubt score hearing.5 46 sustaining ignores framework our past decisions circumscribing scope proscription 'unreasonable' imposing principle searching showing cause. 'general obtained' basic privacy, "the burden seeking (an) exemption need it." E.g., Chimel 752, 762, 2034, 2039 (1969); Katz 389 347, 356—358, 507, 514—515, 576 (1967); Warden Hayden, 387 294, 299, 1642, 1646, 782 (1964); Jeffers, 342 48, 51, 72 93, 95, 96 (1951); McDonald 335 451, 455—456, 191, 193—194, 153 (1948); Agnello 269 4, 6—7, 70 145 (1925). 47 Fidelity requires exceptions accommodate exigencies situations, broader presented. example, creates emergency arrestee's person area gain possession weapon destructible evidence'; exigency rise exception extends far, further. 763, 2040; Trupiano 334 699, 705, 708, 68 1229, 1232 1234, 92 1663 (1948). Similarly Terry Ohio, 392 1, 1868, 889 'stop frisk' 'be strictly circumscribed initiation.' Id., 26, 1882. Any personal safety others nearby forbidden. 48 way, further limited sought.' 153, 285, valuable effecting seizure, steps preserve possible.6 Cf. ALI, Model Code Pre-Arraignment Procedure § 6.03 (Tent. Draft 3, 1970). include making entire highway—a discussion—and indeed appears condone removal convenience police.7 consistent insistence areas departures conform 49 concedes prevent temporarily dispute interests enforcement; states temporary circumstances.' Ante, 51-52.8 clear involves greater sacrifice values. 50 proscribes, sure, 'seizures' well 'searches.' problem likely occur, lesser almost always simple perhaps day—necessary enable shows, very establishing vehicle. Since themselves suffer minimal inconvenience arrests made, persons wish avoid search—either conceal evidence—will certainly prefer loss exchange justification To conceive instances occupant, hide lacking concern deeply offended prompt it. remains consent avoiding delay. forthcoming, interest protected seizure. endorsement invasion suffice inconsistent repeated stress mandate "adherence judicial processes." 357, S.Ct., 514.9 Indeed, beleive implicit unanimous 881 purported decide factual identical 'such fall made.' 883 (emphasis added). concluded available, stating 'since garage, (there no) danger jurisdiction.' 368, 884. reliance 'that meet test reasonableness Amendment,' ibid., retain short rely, today, vagrancy 'no auto.' 47; 368; Wood Crouse, 417 394, 397—398 (C.A.10th 1969). discards approach seriously odds generally principles. 52 accepts introduction error, harmless. Although, explained above, destroys ineffectiveness claim, supports lower courts' item alone, separately similarly All indictments defendants tried together. mistrial, jury guilty charged. stage proceedings, testified, identify exclusion clearly appear us. four-to-eight-year sentence served concurrently sentence, unrelated armed offense, imposed vacated subsequent imposition two-to-seven-year consecutive sentences. offenses here revocation parole begun convictions challenged. Mapp 367 643, 1684, 1081 (1961), federal regularly entertained petitions filed prisoners alleging unconstitutionally admitted See, e.g., Mancusi DeForte, 2120, 1154 (1968); Carafas LaVallee, 234, 1556, 554 (1967). prisoners, divided relief U.S.C. 2255 available vindicate Right-to-counsel pressed proceedings. note Chambers items car; passed proceeding. motion suppress; point judge event, below, necessarily determinative true many cases, furnishing forfeiture law. Evidence admissible. instrumentality crime; abandoned justifies Nothing last 685 (1969), modify affect rationale Carroll. noted: 'Our today entirely existence 'where 543; 1879.' 764 n. 9, 2040. Following impractical since, among things, jurisdiction. Tracing hours days later permit instruments removed dark middle night. safe officers, owner's keys together separate Lawson, owner stand, lead far reveals, Respondent amount quality pursued material what, any, mandated defenses petitioner.' Brief 13. stated: preparation, accomplish date testify proceeding district court. From later, led familiar aspects trial.' 1191. stated court: 'Your Honor, Attorney attempted introduce calibre Chambers' At sustained, like object think good Jury hear feel relevancy found, Chambers, group.' 82. instance transpired talk sources objection: Well, weeks ago. wasn't But, knew it? morning. introduced, admitted. That doesn't mean exclude now.' 130. proceeded overrule motion, adding here, Warrant.' 130—131. Avery, hearing: 'That judge, exhaust angle illuminated absence indication, new done additional granted.' 452, 325. request continuance not, vitiate juncture. suspect may, perform limits prescribed lawful recognizes, exceeded limits. Nor pre-Chimel arrest; retroactivity drawn disregards upholding authority, contraband. (1949); (1938); (1931); Di Re, 332 581, 584 586, 223—225, 210 dicta omitted limitation, Ventresca, 380 102, 107 2, 85 741, 745, 684 (1965); Rabinowitz, 339 56, 61, 430, 433, 94 653 (1950), id., 73, 438 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), authorize exists. Court, unable intrusion, both. concludes once avail. entered interrogated owner, returned car—this successful. times destruction. Nevertheless approves officers' ability promptly magistrate. Circumstances arise impracticable immobilize warrant—for single suspects protecting suspects' absence. situations on-the-spot makes obtaining shunting aside vital safeguard.

Category: 0