Document: 401 U.S. 797 91 S.Ct. 1106 28 L.Ed.2d 484 Archie William HILL, Jr., Petitioner,v.State of CALIFORNIA. No. 51. Argued Jan. 19, 1970. Reargued Oct. 21, Decided April 5, 1971. Syllabus Two men, who were driving petitioner Hill's car, arrested for narcotics possession. A search the car disclosed property stolen in a robbery previous day. Both men admitted taking part and implicated Hill, shared an apartment with one them. The guns used other reported to be apartment. An investigating officer checked official records on verifying his association informants, description, address, make car. police, probable cause arrest but without or warrant, went apartment, there found man matching description. arrestee denied that he was Hill (and, fact, not), knowledge any spotted gun ammunition plain view, man, searched seized guns, property, evidentiary items, two pages diary. convicted robbery, substantially basis items search. trial judge ruled police acted good faith believing Hill. District Court Appeal agree officers valid, thought unreasonable. California Supreme reversed, sustaining both argues Chimel v. California, 395 752, 89 2034, 23 685, narrowing permissible scope searches incident arrest, decided after affirmance conviction by state courts, should applied case this direct review. Held: 1. Chimel, supra, is inapplicable antedating decision, regardless whether collateral review involves federal prisoners. Williams United States, 646, 1148, 388. P. 802. 2. valid under Fourth Amendment, since had reasonably believed Accordingly, they entitled do what law allowed them fact been is, seize evidence crime believe committed. Pp. 802—805. 3. Since argument admission into diary violated Fifth Amendment rights not raised below, it properly before Court. 805—806. 69 Cal.2d 550, 72 Cal.Rptr. 641, 446 P.2d 521, affirmed. Joseph Amato, Santa Ana, Cal., petitioner. Ronald M. George, Los Angeles, respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion 1 On June 4, 1966, four armed robbed resident Studio City, California. Alfred Baum Richard Bader possession narcotics; at time their produced City day before. 4 told sharing 9311 Sepulveda Boulevard. He also stated 6, again involved robbery. 2 One then prior Bader, age physical information uncovered corresponded general descriptions victims statements made Bader. 3 concedes gave policy undertook so 6. Four Boulevard verified knocked. testified: 'The door open person fit description exactly as I received from cards answered door. * We placed him robbery.' neither nor warrant. After arresting door, asked where goods were. replied name Miller, waiting claimed knew nothing about although testified automatic pistol clip lying view coffee table living room took place. identification indicating unimpressed proceeded room, bedroom, kitchen area, bath—for period which described 'a couple hours.' 5 During course search, several items: rent receipts personal correspondence bearing dresser drawer bedroom; starter pistol, switchblade knives, camera hoodmasks white T-shirts, all .22-caliber revolver sofa; bedroom drawer.1 6 October 20, guilty preliminary hearing trial.2 Eyewitnesses unable identify Hill; only substantial guilt consisted In admissibility evidence, good-faith belief Miller Hill.3 agreed nonetheless unreasonable Amendment. 67 389 (1968).4 turn 521 (1968). granted certiorari, 396 818, 90 112, 24 68 (1969), now affirm judgment 7 Petitioner 685 affirmed Court, case, us narrowed States Elkanich 388, we held occurring date decision still when decided, see Williams, challenge asserted subsequent attack conviction. See Elkanich, supra. light past decisions no difference constitutional terms between prisoners insofar retroactive application cases new interpretation Bill Rights concerned. At 656, S.Ct., 1154. pre-Chimel standards, will retrospectively invalidated because decision. II 8 Based our own examination record, find reason disturb either findings courts reasonable, conclusion '(w) hen have party, mistake second party first arrest.' Cal.2d, 553, 643, P.2d, 523.5 unquestionably address mailbox indicated listed occupant Upon gaining entry confronted various sources.6 That But aliases false identifications are uncommon.7 Moreover, lock Miller's explanation mode convincing.8 firearms loaded room.9 upshot him. They quite wrong turned out, subjective would itself justify sufficient probability, certainty, touchstone reasonableness record officers' understandable reasonable response situation facing time. 9 Nor can however It true did authority control over premises, very least guest. question admissible against (or matter) if carried out issue. Here these circumstances When judged accordance 'the factual practical considerations everyday life prudent legal technicians, act,' Brinegar 338 160, 175, 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949), III 10 Finally, brief diary—pages contained amounted confession Boyd 116 616, 524, 29 746 (1886). Counsel conceded oral issue trial. raised, briefed, argued appellate courts.10 petition certiorari likewise ignored it. posture question, briefed here, us. Cardinale Louisiana, 394 437, 1161, 22 398 consider constitutionality Louisiana statute, developed never preserved, passed upon courts. Relying long line cases, dismissed writ want jurisdiction. U.S., 439, 1163. addition, sound reasons adhering such rule. context desirability allowing pass statutes challenge; assures adequate opportunity provide definitive statutes. habeas corpus remedy might remain procedure raising available following dismissal writ. These less applicable case. therefore reach 11 ordered. 12 Affirmed. 13 BLACK concurs result. 14 DOUGLAS consideration 15 HARLAN, whom MARSHALL joins, concurring dissenting part. 16 Court's except its one. 17 Terms ago, lawful must narrowly confined muster. circumstances, said: 18 'There ample justification arrestee's area 'within immediate control' construing phrase mean within gain weapon destructible evidence. 19 comparable justification, however, routinely searching than occurs or, matter, through desk drawers closed concealed areas itself. Such searches, absence well-recognized exceptions, may 'adherence judicial processes' mandated requires less.' 763, 2040 (footnote omitted). 20 here involved, fully plainly exceeded bounds set forth Chimel. State contends consistent conducted evening possible obtain Whatever validity limiting principle contexts, certainly cannot invoked here. hours does explain why observe mistaken test magistrate issuance warrant authorizing complete 21 Because reveals obvious violation duty bound apply principles enunciated like one, review, my separate Mackey (and companion cases), 667, 675, 1171, 404 (1971), today, am compelled cast vote reversal All correspondence, later introduced involving Baum, radio introduced, arrested. handwriting exemplars executed arrest. Although participated same 'there receipts, numerous stack particular pieces paper, notes girls, forth, Hill.' No objection offered testimony. Thereafter, petitioner's severed waived jury submitted transcript exhibits introduced. called additional witness Officer Gastaldo—who more version investigation Miller. effect full participation testimony Gastaldo critical establishing legality testimony, motion suppress seized, including, course, pages. presented further trial, charged. subsequently denied, appeals followed. attacks ground advanced below. For expressed Part opinion, rule contentions. n. 1, stated: 'I reviewed determined defendant, arrested—not defendant case—was document consisting private depends faith.' Ford 'While doctrine balance individual those government respect matter protection particularly person's home, plenary could justified mistakenly charge premises. right privacy yield search.' Cal.Rptr., 391. relied People Kitchens, 46 260, 263—264, 294 17, 19—20 (1956); 193 Cal.App.2d 838, 704 (1961), Campos, 184 489, 513 (1960). Lopez, 269 461, 468, 2, 74 740, 744 (1969) (dictum). disparities established inches taller pounds heavier denying suppress, notice 'that apprehended many times attempt avoid giving identification.' points idea how gained access asserts improper assume lawfully there. undisputed gotten apartment; specific reply, reiterate come tenant. claims disregard proffered identification. However, answer regarded evasive, production little weight. stresses booked taken station house, arguing demonstrates responsible booking procedures whatever house. This buttressed released custody half, thorough check revealed truth identity, despite evasiveness dealing Tr. Oral Rearg. 34—35.

Category: 0