Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/467/630/154112/
Timestamp: 2020-08-13 15:36:23
Document Index: 388888707

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2113', '§ 5861', '§ 3501', '§ 3501', '§ 3501', '§ 3501', '§ 3501', '§ 3501', '§ 3501']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Alphonse Johnson et al., Defendants-appellants, 467 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1972) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Second Circuit › 1972 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Alphonse Johnson et al., Defendants-appellants
United States of America, Appellee, v. Alphonse Johnson et al., Defendants-appellants, 467 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1972)
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 467 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1972) Argued June 29, 1972. Decided Aug. 11, 1972
Alphonse Johnson, Rufus Higley and David White appeal from judgments of conviction entered after a jury trial in the District of Connecticut. Appellants were each charged with having conspired to rob a bank and with having robbed a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (b), (d); 2 and 371, and with having possessed an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861 and 5871. At trial, after the Government rested, the conspiracy count and the count charging Alphonse Johnson with possession of an unregistered firearm were withdrawn. Before the case was submitted to the jury, the count charging Rufus Higley with possession of an unregistered firearm was dismissed. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on the remaining counts.
Johnson's primary contention is that his confession to F.B.I. Agent Lyons was the product of an "unnecessary delay" in being presented before a magistrate and hence, should have been suppressed. We disagree; the delay, whether measured by the McNabb-Mallory rule,2 as appellant urges us to do, or by the standards prescribed in Title II of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 3501,3 was permissible.
With respect to the cases cited by the appellant in which the McNabb-Mallory rule is delineated and those additional cases which research has disclosed, even assuming their applicability in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3501, we find no authority for holding the delay here at issue "unnecessary." As these cases indicate, the determination of whether there has been an "unnecessary delay" in presenting a suspect before a magistrate does not rest solely upon a calculation of the hours and minutes which elapse between an arrest and the arraignment. In each of these cases, the focal question is not how much time passed but how the time was used. See, e. g., United States v. Marrero, 450 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 933, 92 S. Ct. 991, 30 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1972); see, C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 74 at 85 (1969). An analysis of the use of time in the instant case establishes that there was no "unnecessary delay."
Johnson was arrested by state police officers at approximately 9:00 A.M. By 3:55 P.M. the same day arraignment proceedings had already begun. During the intervening 6 hours and 55 minutes, 45 minutes were spent travelling from the place of arrest to the police station and from the police station to the magistrate. As Johnson was not questioned during this span of time, it is evident that it cannot be termed unnecessary.4 An additional 2 hours and 45 minutes were spent in routine processing, the "booking" procedures and the transfer of Johnson from state to federal custody. As this routine processing is unavoidable, the time spent cannot be considered unnecessary. Similarly unquestionable are the 45 minutes which passed while Johnson ate his breakfast. Finally, Johnson was interviewed by state police officers for 1 hour and 40 minutes and by federal officers for 1 hour. During these interviews the authorities obtained essential information on Johnson's pedigree and Johnson twice voluntarily confessed.5 As the confession was first given to the state authorities shortly after that interview began and was similarly repeated to the federal agents, much of the interviewing time was spent particularizing the confession. Thus, even assuming that we must consider the period of state custody in determining whether there was an "unnecessary delay", see, United States v. Coppola, 281 F.2d 340 (2d Cir. 1960), aff'd per curiam, 365 U.S. 762, 81 S. Ct. 884, 6 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1961); United States v. Chadwick, 415 F.2d 167 (10th Cir. 1969), the time spent interviewing Johnson cannot be considered as giving rise to a violation of the McNabb-Mallory rule. See. United States v. Collins, 462 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1972), order for rehearing in banc vacated per curiam, 462 F.2d 801 (2d Cir. 1972); Marrero, supra. It follows that no period of the detention constituted an "unnecessary delay" within the meaning of the rule.
A similar conclusion is reached through application of the now controlling standards set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3501.6 Section 3501(c) prohibits ruling a confession inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing a suspect before a magistrate if the confession was made within six hours of arrest plus such additional period as is found to be reasonable considering the means of transportation and the distance to be traveled to the nearest available magistrate. To determine whether these limits have been exceeded, the period to be calculated is the time "while such person was under arrest or other detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency. . . ." In doubt is the question of whether Congress intended that both state and federal custody be included in this calculation. See, Coppola, supra; Chadwick, supra. If only federal custody is to be considered, it is evident that Johnson's confession was properly admitted under this section of the statute. We need not, however, reach this question. Assuming that both state and federal custody must be considered, the fact that there was a delay in excess of the limits set out in section 3501(c) does not necessarily require suppression of a confession obtained during that delay. Such a delay is only one factor among at least five stated in section 3501(b) to be considered in determining whether the confession was voluntary and therefore admissible. 18 U.S.C. § 3501(b); Marrero, supra; United States v. Halbert, 436 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir. 1970); Wright, supra, Sec. 74 at 89. As there was no question as to the voluntariness of Johnson's confession under section 3501(b), the confession was properly admitted.
Under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), before a suspect in custody can be questioned he
"must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S. Ct. at 1612.
In the instant case, prior to making his confession to the state police officers, Johnson was twice warned of each one of these rights; first an officer told him of these rights and then Johnson read them aloud from a poster in the police station and stated that he understood each one. At no time during the questioning which immediately followed did Johnson indicate any desire to terminate the interrogation. See, Collins, supra; Miranda, supra at 473-474, 86 S. Ct. 1602. Subsequently, prior to repeating his confession to the federal agents, Johnson was again twice warned of each one of these rights; first an agent orally explained them to him and then he signed a waiver form. As in the prior interview, at no time was there any intimation that he wished the questioning to cease. Under these circumstances, we find that Johnson was adequately warned of his Miranda rights. See, United States v. Vanterpool, 394 F.2d 697 (2d Cir. 1968).
Johnson's final contention is that he was entitled to the presence of an attorney at a pre-trial photographic identification. As no authority is cited in support of his position and no arguments are advanced as to why we should reconsider a position which has been rejected many times before, see, e. g., United States v. Bennett, 409 F.2d 888 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, Haywood v. United States, 396 U.S. 852, 90 S. Ct. 113, 24 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1969); United States ex rel. Johnson v. Dept. of Correctional Services, 461 F.2d 956, 959-960 (2d Cir. 1972), the contention can be dismissed as being without merit.
The answer to Higley's contention is found in Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1967). There the police, in "hot pursuit" of at least one armed suspect, entered a house where they had reason to believe he was hiding. Spreading out through the house, some of the officers arrested the suspect in an upstairs bedroom. Meanwhile, one officer discovered a shotgun and a pistol in a flush tank in an upstairs bathroom and another found a jacket and trousers of the type the fleeing man was said to have worn in a washing machine in the cellar. In addition, a clip of ammunition for the pistol and a cap were found under the suspect's mattress and ammunition for the shotgun was found in a bureau in the suspect's room. In holding all these items of evidence admissible, the Court stated that the police
"acted reasonably when they entered the house and began to search for a man of the description they had been given and for weapons which he had used in the robbery or might use against them. The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others. Speed here was essential, and only a thorough search of the house for persons and weapons could have insured that Hayden [the suspect] was the only man present and that the police had control of all weapons which could be used against them or to effect an escape." 387 U.S. at 298-299, 87 S. Ct. at 1646.
It is evident that both the facts of Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden and its rationale refute Higley's contention. In the instant case, as in Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, the police were properly in an upstairs bedroom searching for weapons and other armed suspects. As part of this search, opening a closet door in the room was not only reasonable but virtually required to insure the safety of the officers. Upon noticing a "grip" of what appeared to be a weapon, the police officer properly examined the bag from which the "grip" was protruding. Similarly reasonable was the search of the coat which the suspect was known to wear for weapons and its seizure once a shotgun shell was found in a pocket. To have not acted in this manner would have "gravely endanger [ed] their lives or the lives of others." All the items were properly admitted.
We find little difficulty in concluding that the officers were justified in seizing the closed suitcases. It was not practical to secure a warrant because the suitcases could have been removed from their position outside the apartment building at any moment. The suitcases in this situation were similar to mobile automobiles. See, Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925). It was therefore likely that the opportunity to seize the suitcases would have passed if the officers had waited to secure a warrant. See, Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970). Of more difficulty is the question of whether the officers properly opened the suitcases after seizing them.
Upon due consideration, we find that in opening the suitcases, the police were not acting in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The "exigencies of the situation made that course imperative." McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456, 69 S. Ct. 191, 193, 93 L. Ed. 153 (1948). The officers were holding a suitcase which they had probable cause to believe contained a contraband sawed-off shotgun. There was a substantial possibility the gun was loaded. As they stood in that transient and high crime area, their own safety and the safety of others required that they know whether they were holding a dangerous weapon over which they had no control. Cf., Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1972). Under these circumstances, we cannot hold that the police were required to carry the suitcase, unopened, to the police station to obtain a warrant or that an officer should have stood near or held the unopened suitcase as a warrant was obtained. The police were entitled to know what they were holding in their possession. The suitcase containing the shotgun and its contents were properly admitted.8
It should first be noted that the motion for disclosure was not made until the third day of trial, after the motion to suppress the contents of the suitcase had been denied. While the appellant certainly had the right to request disclosure at the suppression hearing, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S. Ct. 623, 1 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1957); Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S. Ct. 174, 83 L. Ed. 151 (1938), this right does not necessarily exist throughout the course of the trial. United States v. Volkell, 251 F.2d 333, 336 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 962, 78 S. Ct. 1000, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1068 (1958); Bennett, supra, 409 F.2d at 901. Here, where the accused was aware of all the relevant facts at the time the motion to suppress was heard, F.R.Cr.P. 41(e) would have permitted a denial of the motion to disclose insofar as disclosure was relevant to the issue of probable cause.
Extending the Carroll motor vehicle doctrine to suitcases or similar objects is not justified, especially where, as in this case, there was no difficulty in either posting a watch over the suitcase or transporting it less than three blocks to the police station until a showing of probable cause could be made before a magistrate. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971). I would grant a new trial to White.
While Higley and Johnson had no standing to object, Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e), United States v. Bozza, 365 F.2d 206, 222-223 (2d Cir. 1966) and see Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 88 S. Ct. 2120, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1154 (1968), affirming United States ex rel. DeForte v. Mancusi, 379 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1967); Combs v. United States, 408 U.S. 224, 92 S. Ct. 2284, 33 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1972), and as to Johnson in any case in the light of his confessions any error in admission might well be harmless, the search was directed at White, in whose recent possession the suitcase had been. He had standing to raise the objection that no exigent circumstances required invasion of his rights by search without determination of probable cause by an impartial magistrate, not only on the possession count, but also on the robbery counts.
Rule 5(a) of the F.R.Cr.P. requires that " [a]n officer making an arrest under a warrant . . . shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner. . . ." Evidence secured in violation of this Rule is inadmissible in a federal criminal proceeding. McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S. Ct. 608, 87 L. Ed. 819 (1943); Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S. Ct. 1356, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1479 (1957)
18 U.S.C. § 3501 provides:
See, 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c)
Johnson does not claim that his confession was the result of coercion, either physical or psychological, or that it was any other way involuntary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3501(b)
The difficult question of whether section 3501 was intended to overrule Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), or whether it would be constitutional if it was, is not presently before us and we express no opinion as to the possible answers
Because we find this contention to be without merit we need not determine whether Higley has standing to raise this issue on appeal. See, McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S. Ct. 191, 93 L. Ed. 153 (1948); Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1960)
Since we find the seizure and search of the suitcase justified on the above explained rationales we need not determine what general standard is to be applied to the search and seizure of suitcases. See, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 461 n. 18, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971) and compare with Chambers, supra; see also, United States v. Maynard, 439 F.2d 1086 (9th Cir. 1971) and United States v. Mehciz, 437 F.2d 145 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 974, 91 S. Ct. 1663, 29 L. Ed. 2d 139 (1971), and compare with United States v. Colbert, 454 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1972), which, according to the Government's Brief, p. 18 n. 9, the Fifth Circuit has on its own motion decided to re-consider en banc