Source: https://m.openjurist.org/589/f2d/1117
Timestamp: 2019-06-25 11:39:17
Document Index: 365184351

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 704', '§ 1106', '§ 878', '§ 3146', '§ 1113', '§ 26', '§ 2381']

589 F2d 1117 United States v. Miller | OpenJurist
589 F. 2d 1117 - United States v. Miller
589 F.2d 1117
3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1418
Jackie David MILLER, Defendant, Appellant.
Martin G. Weinberg, with whom Joseph S. Oteri, Judith F. Bowman, New York City, Oteri & Weinberg, Boston, Mass., Jeanne Baker, David J. Fine, and Rosenberg, Baker & Fine, Cambridge, Mass., were on brief, for defendant, appellant.
George J. Mitchell, U. S. Atty., Portland, Me., with whom Paula D. Silsby, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Me., was on brief, for appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, KUNZIG,* Judge, U. S. Court of Claims, DUMBAULD,** Senior District Judge.
A few minutes later Muise went down to the COLD DUCK and asked if appellant had been there. He had not. Muise provided a description of appellant and his vehicle, and witnesses in the lot reported that he had recently departed, apparently in a hurry. The three deputies set out in two cars to locate appellant. Deputy White proceeded alone to Georgetown Center where he passed appellant going in the opposite direction. The two had eye contact and appellant accelerated rapidly.1 White immediately turned and gave chase, at speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour. White caught up with appellant in about two miles and, with lights and siren operating, tailed appellant for another two miles before appellant stopped his vehicle. Appellant produced his license and registration upon request and admitted that he owned the COLD DUCK. White then escorted appellant back to the marina, driving his police car behind the Blazer.
Drinan, Brawn, and Setlar then drove to Woolwich and, having obtained the street address that corresponded with the appellant's post office box, found an empty house and neighbors who reported that "Jackie" had moved out several weeks before. Brawn then suggested that, based upon the course marked on the chart, appellant might be connected with Mill Isle. The officers decided to go to Mill Isle2 to question the occupants of the houses there to see if they had observed any unusual activity at the deep water dock located there.
Appellant first challenges the boardings and examinations of his boat, the COLD DUCK, that led to the seizure of a navigational chart. We have no difficulty approving the first boarding on the evening of May 13. At that point, a boat of unknown origin had been abandoned at a mooring belong to another person, where it remained for over twelve hours, fouled in its lines. A boat, like an automobile, carries with it a lesser expectation of privacy than a home or an office. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).3 A boat, even more than an automobile, becomes a matter of legitimate concern to public safety officials when it is found abandoned, 250 yards from shore, its dinghy still on board. The responsibility of state officials for the safety of property was triggered by these circumstances. See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973) (state officials' "community caretaking functions" for vehicles involved in accidents). More important, the circumstances justified a reasonable fear of injury to life and limb, specifically a drowning. Such a combination of "community caretaking functions" and possibly exigent circumstances amply justified intruding upon the limited privacy expectations surrounding an abandoned vessel in order to determine ownership of the boat and the safety of its mariners. Cf. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) (exigent circumstances allow warrantless intrusion to perform administrative function).
The following morning, Deputies White and Kinney boarded the COLD DUCK for what developed into a more extensive search. Because the officers had a duty to deal with abandoned property, See Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, the boarding itself was justified by the need to clear the vessel of its fouled moorings and secure it to a nearby dock, as the owner of the mooring desired. The search that took place during and after the securing of the vessel, however, presents a more substantial question.4 It was this search that yielded the chart that led the officers to Mill Isle and the marijuana. Hours before this search, both the sheriff's department and the Coast Guard had each called in the DEA. The deputies noticed marijuana cigarettes and poorly installed electronic equipment soon after boarding the boat. We find it hard to believe that they did not smell a smuggler soon after, if not before, they boarded the boat. If these facts, and no others, were presented to us, we would be hard pressed to approve the seizure and use of the chart. The Fourth Amendment does not countenance warrantless "exploratory rummaging" on every unattended vessel that smells of smuggling. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022.
We are not, however, faced with a clear case of exploratory rummaging. Rather, three factors enable us to say that the search by White and Kinney was constitutional, despite the lack of a warrant. First, the district court found as a fact that a legitimate non-criminal purpose, investigation of a drowning, motivated White and Kinney's search. Second, the court found that the search was limited in scope to that purpose. Appellant argues that we must reject these findings as clearly erroneous, in the main because the sheriff's department had an address for the owner of the boat. We cannot agree that where there is an emergency need to obtain information in a non-criminal investigation the authorities are limited to pursuing one clue.5 Moreover, divers in the employ of the sheriff's department were searching for bodies in the waters around the COLD DUCK at the same time that White and Kinney conducted their search. Such is clear evidence that a drowning investigation was being conducted.
The third factor is the Court's teaching in Michigan v. Tyler,supra. In Tyler, the Supreme Court sanctioned the initial warrantless, non-criminal search for evidence of the cause of a fire. Just as fire officials have a duty to seek the cause of a fire, the deputies in this case had a duty to seek the explanation for, and possible victims of, an apparent nautical mishap. In Tyler, such a search was permissible without a warrant for so long as the possible rekindling of the fire created an exigent situation. The circumstances of this case were equally, if not more exigent. Even more than the possible resurgence of the fire in Tyler, the tides of Maine made it likely that the object of the search, a body, would disappear if the search were delayed. Moreover, if exigent circumstances justify warrantless entry and seizure of evidence of arson, which evidence is inevitably criminal, then an emergency certainly justifies entry and seizure of a navigational chart, relevant to a possible drowning, which by happenstance later proves to be incriminating.6 Cf. United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc) (permissible for Coast Guard inspection boarding to develop into criminal search).
To summarize, appellant's limited expectations of privacy in the COLD DUCK, already minimized by its abandonment at an unauthorized mooring, were not violated by entry pursuant to a reasonable belief that an emergency required an immediate search. The owner of the vessel had been missing long enough to trigger a reasonable belief of danger to life and limb and not so long as to make the proffered emergency a mere pretext. The resulting search was "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies that justif(ied) its initiation." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-26, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The chart was in plain view on the floor of the cabin. Its discovery was inadvertent. Opening it up was not exploratory rummaging, but rather went directly to the purpose of the officers' presence. See Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927). As in Michigan v. Tyler, it was self-evidently relevant to the non-criminal purpose of the investigation (finding the mariners) and therefore need not be self-evidently incriminating in order to fit squarely within the plain view exception articulated in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra.B. Detention of Appellant for Questioning
As a preliminary matter, we lack, perhaps understandably, a full analysis below of the facts and law pertaining to the initial detention of appellant.7 We note that appellant did preserve the issue in his suppression argument. At oral argument on the suppression motion, the government took the position that the precise nature of the initial detention (investigative stop or full arrest) was irrelevant since Deputy White had probable cause for arrest. At oral argument on appeal the government refused to concede that Deputy White needed probable cause for arrest to justify the detention under the Fourth Amendment, but failed to offer us an alternative standard for evaluating what was clearly more than a brief investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
We therefore rely on the record and the few facts found concerning the initial stop. The record reveals that after stopping appellant, Deputy White asked for and received his license and registration. After appellant, in response to questioning, identified himself as the owner of the COLD DUCK, Deputy White asked him to return to the marina for questioning. There is no evidence that appellant objected. Nevertheless, the deputy retained appellant's license and registration during the drive back to the marina. This testimony was uncontradicted.8
Given this testimony, the trial court stated in its finding of facts that the appellant "agreed" to accompany the deputy back to the marina. Because appellant was most cooperative with the authorities in the ensuing discussions at the dock, we could easily credit this finding of consent, had the deputy not retained the license and registration. Appellant could not lawfully operate his vehicle without those papers. He was not free to go. Although the line between an investigatory stop and an arrest has yet to be fully defined (See, e. g., United States v. Worthington, 544 F.2d 1275, 1281-88 (5th Cir. 1977) (Goldberg, J., dissenting)), when appellant was so significantly deprived of his liberty of movement for a substantial time, this was, if not an arrest, closer along the detention spectrum to an arrest than to an investigatory stop. See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); United States v. McCaleb, 552 F.2d 717, 720 (6th Cir. 1977); United States v. McDevitt, 508 F.2d 8, 11 (10th Cir. 1974); United States v. Maslanka, 501 F.2d 208, 213 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1974), Cert. denied sub nom. Knight v. United States, 421 U.S. 912, 95 S.Ct. 1567, 43 L.Ed.2d 777 (1975). Such investigatory detention requires more justification than the founded suspicion underlying a brief stop. Davis v. Mississippi, supra, 394 U.S. at 726-27, 89 S.Ct. 1394; See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). In the absence of any argument that an intermediate procedure falling between a stop and an arrest was either intended or authorized here, we must reject the government's position that probable cause for arrest was not required to justify the detention.
We think the matter is not so simple. The statute authorizing warrantless arrests in these circumstances, 15 M.R.S.A. § 704 (West 1965 & Supp.1978), directs a deputy to "arrest and detain persons found violating any law of the State . . . ." The word "found" has been interpreted to require that the offense be committed in the presence of the officer. United States v. O'Donnell, 209 F.Supp. 332 (D.Me.1962). In State v. Cowperthwaite, 354 A.2d 173 (Me.1976), the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has interpreted the presence requirement as allowing arrest where the facts confronting an officer give him probable cause to believe that the offense is being committed. An officer may draw reasonable inferences from the immediate observations of his senses. Id. Applying this rule to the facts in this case, we find that Deputy White was statutorily and constitutionally authorized to arrest the appellant for speeding. Although the deputy never clocked the appellant at speeds 30 miles per hour in excess of the statutory limit, the deputy did know how much head start the appellant had and did know that speeds of 90 miles per hour, at first in a 35 miles per hour zone, were needed to catch the appellant. Probable cause for arrest does not require the quantum of proof necessary to convict. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965). Under the standards governing Deputy White's conduct, "the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer . . . were sufficient to warrant a prudent and cautious man in believing that the arrested person had committed" the offense of speeding. State v. Fletcher, 288 A.2d 92, 97 (Me.1972) (Quoting State v. Smith, 277 A.2d 481, 488 (Me.1971)).
"(W)hile we do not say that there could never be an egregious situation where an arrest on purely colorable grounds might be held invalid as 'pretextual', Cf. Taglavore v. United States, 291 F.2d 262, 265 (9th Cir. 1961), the validity of an arrest is normally gauged by an objective standard rather than by inquiry into the officer's presumed motives. If this were not so, an arrest's validity could not be settled until long after the event; it would depend not only on the psychology of the arresting officer but the psychology of the judge." United States v. McCambridge, 551 F.2d 865, 870 (1st Cir. 1977).
We acknowledge that McCambridge Is distinguishable from the instant case insofar as the arresting officer in McCambridge had no suspicions about more serious crimes at the time of the traffic arrest. Nevertheless, we feel that founded suspicions that a person has committed one crime do not disable an officer from making a probable cause arrest based upon the operation of a vehicle during guilty flight from the officer's reasonable attempts to question that person. The Fifth Circuit has upheld a traffic arrest on facts very similar to those in the present case. United States v. Maslanka, 501 F.2d 208, 213 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1974). We agree with its reasoning that a traffic arrest after a high speed chase, even where the cause of the chase is founded suspicion of a more serious crime, is clearly distinguishable from the case of officers having mere suspicions who carefully lie in wait until a minor traffic infraction gives them a pretext to confirm their suspicions. In the same vein, the cases cited by appellant to support his "pretext" argument (E. g., United States v. Montgomery, 182 U.S.App.D.C. 426, 561 F.2d 875 (1977) involved officers acting without articulable facts to support any suspicion and using registration checks (Not arrests for crimes) as pretexts for searches. As explained more fully below, Deputy White had numerous facts to support his suspicions, had every reason to give chase, and in the process was presented with completely independent probable cause to arrest for speeding.
Even if our construction of Maine traffic statutes should prove faulty, we think that Deputy White nevertheless had probable cause to arrest appellant for drug trafficking. Viewed in isolation, the individual facts known to the deputy may have been consistent with innocent explanations, but taken as a rapidly developing whole, the facts justifying appellant's apprehension were consistent with good, constitutional police work.9 The deputy knew that a large yacht had recently been purchased for cash in small denominations, by a man who had asked for two receipts showing different prices for the boat. He could reasonably infer that not only did the new owner not want to be traced but also that the new owner wanted to deceive someone about the amount of cash he had available. White knew that the new owner had recently installed expensive long range navigation equipment in a sloppy fashion. He could reasonably infer that the owner planned to or had made an ocean voyage and was in a hurry. On that boat was a chart showing a course approaching Mill Isle, a secluded location with a deep water harbor suitable for smuggling and located near an area already under investigation as a smuggler's port, plus evidence of recent use of small amounts of marijuana, not in and of itself a crime but grounds to support an inference that the boat was involved with drug traffic. This suspicious craft had been abandoned at night at an unauthorized mooring and been unclaimed for more than 24 hours. Then the owner arrived. Rather than investigate the presence of uniformed officers on the vessel he had so carelessly left behind, the owner sped away in what can only be characterized as guilty flight. Finally, upon seeing a uniformed officer observing him in Georgetown Center, the owner once again fled the authorities, speeding down a winding road past the entrance to the marina. At this point, Deputy White had not seen more than 1 1/2 ounces of marijuana associated with the defendant,10 but these facts were sufficient to warrant a reasonable and prudent man's belief that appellant had been engaged in "furnishing" under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1106(3), if not a more serious crime.
Appellant's arguments on this issue give us little difficulty. Appellant had a very limited expectation of privacy in his truck. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). Appellant completely eliminated any such expectation by leaving the door open. Any passerby could have seen the marijuana on the floor of his truck. The trial court expressly found that the deputies were not attempting to search the vehicle. Appellant does not contend that the deputies were not lawfully present outside his vehicle. Therefore, the discovery of the marijuana debris falls squarely within the plain view exception. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire,supra.
As discussed more fully below, the circumstances, surrounding the search of the suitcases had few, if any, of the inherently coercive characteristics that negate a finding of voluntariness. See United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra. Because appellant never expressly consented to the search, however, we are faced with the more difficult question of when consent may be inferred from action. Appellant urges us to adopt the standard espoused in United States v. Abbott, 546 F.2d 883 (10th Cir. 1976). Abbott held that the acts from which consent is inferred must be "unequivocal and specific". Id. at 885. Because the Abbott court selected this evidentiary standard while characterizing consent to search as a "waiver of a fundamental right" (Id.), a characterization and a mode of analysis expressly rejected in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, we are not convinced that the trial court's conclusion should be subjected to such close scrutiny. Indeed, in United States v. Cepulonis, supra, 530 F.2d at 244, we deferred to the trial court's resolution of equivocal evidence of consent. Nevertheless, even if we apply, Arguendo, the "unequivocal and specific" standard, we think that the inference of consent was proper on the facts of this case. Appellant's conversation with Drinan aboard the COLD DUCK was relaxed and casual. Appellant was cooperative, and when he did not wish to be helpful he clearly drew the line. Upon returning to the parking lot, appellant unlocked the truck for Drinan.11 Simply unlocking a vehicle, without saying a word, has been held sufficient to support an inference of consent-in-fact. United States v. Almand, 565 F.2d 927 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 92, 58 L.Ed.2d 116 (1978). Even if, however, the act of unlocking a vehicle, without more, might not support an inference of consent to search luggage contained therein, appellant's act in this case does support the ultimate finding of consent-in-fact.
More important than the foregoing prelude to the search of the suitcases is appellant's behavior at the time of the search. Agent Drinan first removed the four suitcases from the Blazer. Then, before attempting to open each one, the agent asked appellant if he owned the bag. In each case, appellant denied both ownership and any knowledge of the owner of the bag. The first three bags were unlocked and their contents unincriminating. The fourth had a combination lock. Although denying ownership, the appellant stated that he thought he could unlock it and proceeded to do so. Given appellant's demonstrated ability to choose whether or not to cooperate, we think that the disclaimer of any knowledge or interest in the luggage together with the unlocking of the incriminating bag clearly support an inference of consent-in-fact. We find support for this holding in the rule adopted by the Fifth and Ninth Circuits that one who denies any interest in luggage has abandoned the property and thereby loses any standing to challenge an ensuing search. See United States v. Jackson, 544 F.2d 407 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Anderson, 500 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc). Although we are not convinced that the property law analysis of abandonment ought to be applied where the issue is a reasonable expectation of privacy (See Katz v. United States, supra ), we reach the same result by reasoning that one who disclaims any interest in luggage thereby disclaims any concern about whether or not the contents of the luggage remain private. See United States v. Berkowitz, 429 F.2d 921, 925 (1st Cir. 1971) (disclaimer of interest in allegedly stolen goods vitiates any Fourth Amendment interest in goods).
Finally, we find support in our holding in Robbins v. MacKenzie, 364 F.2d 45 (1st Cir.), Cert. denied, 385 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 215, 17 L.Ed.2d 140 (1966), that opening and stepping away from the door to an apartment is implied consent to entry and observation by a police officer who knocks.12 Nor does appellant's citation of United States v. McCaleb, supra, persuade us to the contrary. McCaleb held that the act of unlocking a suitcase will not support an inference of consent. McCaleb involved an illegal stop based upon a "drug courier profile" and an illegal detention for questioning in unfamiliar surroundings. Moreover, the agents in McCaleb misrepresented their authority to obtain a warrant to open the suitcase. Such circumstances are inherently coercive (See United States v. Watson, supra ). Such are not the circumstances of this case. The finding of consent-in-fact was not clearly erroneous.
Many of the factors that support an inference of consent also support the finding of voluntariness. Accordingly, we discuss them only briefly here. Appellant is a man of average education and intelligence. He demonstrated his ability to use that intelligence to avoid incriminating himself in his discussions with Drinan. Appellant had been informed of, and indicated his understanding of, his Miranda rights twice before the suitcase search. No lengthy detention or physical abuse was involved. Rather, although we have held that appellant was technically under arrest when asked to return to the marina, the atmosphere of his "detention" had none of the coercive aspects involved in questioning at the stationhouse. See United States v. Watson, supra, 423 U.S. at 424, 96 S.Ct. 820. In short, all of the criteria of voluntariness set forth in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, were met here.13
Having arrested appellant for possession of the hashish found in the locked suitcase, Agent Drinan seized the Blazer under the authority of the forfeiture statutes, 21 U.S.C. §§ 878(4) & 881(b)(1)(4). The Blazer was then immediately searched. We think that the key found in the Blazer was appropriately seized as evidence revealed during an inventory search.
In South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of the authorities to search the interior of a seized vehicle in order to secure personal property contained therein. Such a search protects both the owner and the police. If such a search reveals evidence, the police may seize it. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); United States v. McCambridge, supra, 551 F.2d at 870-71. Appellant objects, however, that the seizure of the key transmutes the inventory search into an investigatory search.14 Appellant reasons that because the key was not obviously criminal evidence and became evidence only when the officers found that it fit the door to the main house at Mill Isle ten days later, the use of the key was investigatory and therefore exceeded the bounds of the caretaking function countenanced by South Dakota v. Opperman, supra.
In our view, appellant is quibbling with Agent Drinan's decision that the key might be relevant to prove the charge for which appellant was arrested possession and transportation of drugs. We think Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 87 S.Ct. 788, 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967), is dispositive of this claim. In Cooper, the defendant was arrested for selling heroin and his car forfeited for transporting contraband. A warrantless search of the glove compartment of the seized auto revealed a scrap of brown paper similar to, but larger than, scraps used to wrap heroin allegedly sold by the defendant. The Supreme Court approved the seizure of the paper as reasonably related to the arrest and the purpose of the forfeiture. In other words, the scrap of paper could be probative of the charge against the defendant and the vehicle.
Where an owner has not attempted to secure open fields and woods from "invasion" by a casual, or an official visitor, a police officer may cross private land in order to question the inhabitants of dwellings thereon. United States v. Hersh, 464 F.2d 228 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1008, 93 S.Ct. 442, 34 L.Ed.2d 301 (1972); United States v. Knight, 451 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1971); See Patler v. Slayton, 503 F.2d 472 (4th Cir. 1972) (no privacy interest in unposted target range behind farm). The land involved here was not posted; there was no fence or chain to impede visitors; the officers approached openly in broad daylight. Thus, the entry was permissible. See United States v. Hersh, supra; United States v. Brown, 457 F.2d 731, 733 (1st Cir. 1972) (entry upon land to investigate reports of abandoned vehicles in woods and to inquire of inhabitants permissible). The cases cited by appellant to the contrary all involved an impermissible initial intent to search. E. g., United States v. Holmes, 521 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1975).
The trial court also credited testimony and physical evidence showing that the approach to the chalet put the dock in plain view and that the discovery of the marijuana debris on the dock was inadvertent. We have no basis to overturn these findings. The trial court also found that despite the officers' attempts to look in the windows of the chalet, the officers' continued observations did not become a search. Although as an original matter we might be quite suspicious of continued wanderings that revealed more evidence in "plain view" (Cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra ), there is ample evidence to support the trial court's finding that the officers crossed the island solely to inquire at the main house.
Assuming, as we must, that the trip across the island was permissible, the bale of marijuana discovered in plain view beside the road was properly seized. As in Patler v. Slayton, supra, (spent bullets dug out of target range in open field), the appellant could not reasonably expect privacy when he left a bale of marijuana in the open, even under a tarpaulin. If no expectation of privacy was reasonably involved, there was no search. See Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 416 U.S. 861, 94 S.Ct. 2114, 40 L.Ed.2d 607 (1974); United States v. Freie, 545 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1976), Cert. denied sub nom. Gangadean v. United States, 430 U.S. 966, 97 S.Ct. 1645, 52 L.Ed.2d 356 (1977) (stack of cartons containing marijuana under tarpaulin in plain view from airfield; no search); United States v. Pruitt, 464 F.2d 494 (9th Cir. 1972). In Pruitt, the appellants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in marijuana stuffed in duffel bags and hidden under bushes. The court noted: "Any casual passerby would feel perfectly free to ascertain what it was that he had found. The only justified expectation of those who had secreted the marijuana was that the cache would remain secure against intrusion only so long as it remained undiscovered." Id. at 496. Pruitt did not involve a private road across private land. Nevertheless, because the appellant made no attempt to secure his open land from unwanted visitors, we find that the same analysis applies to these facts where the marijuana lay beside a road, a quarter mile from any habitation, and surrounded by twist ties and marijuana debris.15
Appellant objects to the admission of two statements as violative of his Fifth Amendment rights.16 He first objects to the admission of his colloquy with Agent Drinan during the drive from Bath to Portland. The trial court found a number of facts supporting its conclusion that appellant's admissions were voluntary. Such facts stand unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Jobin, 535 F.2d 154, 156 (1st Cir. 1976). Appellant had been advised of his right to remain silent three times before he made incriminating statements. He had indicated his understanding of those rights. Although appellant refused to sign the printed waiver form, there are no facts tending to show that he had the misimpression that failure to sign immunized his statements. Thus, the concerns we expressed in United States v. Van Dusen, 431 F.2d 1278 (1st Cir. 1970), are not present here.
Appellant next objects to the use at trial of his statement at his bail hearing that his residence was Mill Isle. Appellant's theory is that he was forced to make an unconstitutional choice between two fundamental rights, the right to remain silent when admission of any connection with Mill Isle would incriminate him and the Eighth Amendment right to release on bail under reasonable conditions. Our answer is threefold. First, appellant did not have an unconditional constitutional right to release on bail. United States v. Abrahams, 575 F.2d 3 (1st Cir.), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 85, 58 L.Ed.2d 112 (1978). Thus, the right he places in balance here is different from the Fifth and Fourth Amendment rights held in balance in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968) (Fifth Amendment requires exclusion of testimony at suppression hearing to establish standing to raise Fourth Amendment challenge). Second, the appellant has not shown us that exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights at the bail hearing would have resulted in denial of release.17 The length of residence in the community is only one of many factors taken into consideration in establishing the terms of release in the discretion of the magistrate. 18 U.S.C. § 3146(b).
Finally, "(t)he criminal process, like the rest of the legal system, is replete with situations requiring 'the making of difficult judgments' as to which course to follow. . . . " McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 213, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 1470, 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971). Given the limited nature of the Eighth Amendment "right" the appellant feared he might lose by remaining silent, we can say, as we have said on very similar facts: "the right not to speak embodied in the Fifth Amendment is not equivalent to a right to volunteer information to the government under a grant of immunity." Flint v. Mullen, 499 F.2d 100, 102 (1st Cir. 1974). See Spinelli v. United States, 382 F.2d 871, 891-92 (8th Cir. 1967), Rev'd on other grounds, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969) (no exclusion of bail-hearing testimony on residence even though information on residence both essential to bail and incriminating).
Appellant next challenges the admission of evidence of the street value of the marijuana seized at Mill Isle. We note that street value is relevant to prove intent to distribute. United States v. DiNovo, 523 F.2d 197, 202 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Hollman, 541 F.2d 196, 200 (8th Cir. 1976). Appellant's argument that such proof was unnecessary given the tonnage involved and was therefore excludable because of its prejudicial impact (See United States v. Hollman, supra ) might stir us if appellant had given the trial court an opportunity to balance prejudice and probative value. F.R.Evid. 403. Appellant's stated objection, however, was to the relevance of street value and the hearsay nature of Agent Drinan's testimony on the subject. Appellant did not assert that any potential probative value of street value evidence might be outweighed by its prejudicial impact. Moreover, having failed to alert the trial court to the task at hand, appellant now declines to favor us with an argument concerning plain error. We see no plain error and reject this challenge.
Appellant argues at length that three decisions overturning jury verdicts on importation charges require that we reverse. The cases, United States v. Maslanka, 501 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1974), United States v. Carrion,457 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1972), and United States v. Meyer, 432 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1970), clearly stand for the proposition that mere possession of imported contraband is not sufficient to support a conviction for importation. Indeed, in Carrion the court held that a pilot who lands in Los Angeles with a plane load of marijuana in packages marked with Spanish writing cannot be convicted of importation, even though he had burned enough fuel for a round trip to Mexico and had a matchbook from a Mexican restaurant in his pocket. Without commenting on the severity of this review of a jury's findings, we hold that Carrion and the other cases cited by appellant are distinguishable. In none of the cited cases did the defendant confess to importation. In the case at bar, appellant admitted that the marijuana at Mill Isle represented his "first run" and that what he had run was high quality marijuana from Colombia. Moreover, appellant was found in possession of Colombian-packaged marijuana on the coast of Maine, unlike the southwesterners found in possession of foreign items common within their area of the United States. Finally, the government presented evidence of long range planning in the form of boat and land purchases by the defendant. These facts, together with the size of the operation at Mill Isle and appellant's admission that the cache at Mill Isle was only part of his "run" permit a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellant's last claim is that the trial court based its decision to impose maximum sentences on all counts upon legally impermissible considerations. The court was candid about its reasoning, which we set out in full in the margin.18
Appellant concedes that as a general rule sentencing decisions are within the exclusive discretion of the trial court. Marano v. United States, 374 F.2d 583, 586 (1st Cir. 1967). There are, however, two established exceptions to this rule, where the trial court employs impermissible considerations in fixing sentence (See id., LeBlanc v. United States, 391 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1968)) and where the trial court refuses to "individualize" the sentence, basing it instead upon mechanistic application of rules unrelated to the defendant's character. See United States v. Wardlaw,576 F.2d 932 (1st Cir. 1978); United States v. Foss, 501 F.2d 522, 527 (1st Cir. 1974). Appellant claims that the trial court's focus upon his failure to confess and cooperate in apprehending his confederates placed an impermissible "price tag" upon his exercise of his rights not to incriminate himself and to appeal his conviction. See United States v. Rogers, 504 F.2d 1079, 1084 (5th Cir. 1974). We do not agree.
We have, however, recognized that open bargaining with the defendant may indicate that the trial court is punishing the defendant for failing to confess his misdeeds and have found such punishment grounds to vacate sentence. See LeBlanc v. United States, supra. Moreover, we have expressed concern in another context that a defendant's utilization of his right to appeal and retrial cannot carry the "price tag" of the risk of increased sentence based upon a reevaluation of the culpability of his acts. Marano v. United States, supra, 374 F.2d at 585. We perceive a distinction, however, between punishing a defendant for maintaining his innocence and preserving his right to appeal whether that punishment be expressly or subtly imposed and merely considering a defendant's failure to recant when evaluating his prospects for rehabilitation without incarceration. The trial court in the case at bar expressly recognized the appellant's right to remain silent and framed its remarks about appellant's failure to confess in the context of evaluating his prospects for rehabilitation. We think the consideration of defendant's attitude was permissible (see Gollaher v. United States, supra) and represented the sort of individual consideration we found lacking in United States v. Wardlaw, supra.
Finally, the trial court's discussion of appellant's failure to cooperate in bringing to justice the members of a continuing smuggling operation immediately followed the government's persuasive plea for a stiff sentence as a general deterrent to a growing problem. Although general deterrence is much criticized and cannot justify "mechanistic" imposition of stiff sentences (See United States v. Foss, supra, 501 F.2d at 527), general deterrence is a permissible consideration at sentencing. Id. We perceive such a purpose running as a strong undercurrent throughout the trial court's discourse. We cannot say that considering general deterrence in this situation was an abuse of discretion.
As further detail may be relevant, we note that although the Deputy's vehicle was unmarked, it did possess a flashing light, Deputy White was in uniform, and appellant, sitting high in the Blazer, could look down and into the Deputy's car
Mill Isle is a peninsula of land connected to the mainland by a causeway. The parcel contains a dock, a chalet cottage near the dock, a main house one-quarter mile from the chalet, a barn close to the main house, and assorted outbuildings. The road across the causeway to the main house is a public road. All other roads on Mill Isle are private
By so saying, we do not intend to imply that all of the doctrinal gloss applicable to automobiles is also applicable to boats. Nor do we purport to deal with such specialized craft as houseboats or vessels obviously used as homes. But it has long been recognized that boats, like automobiles, are subject to frequent limited intrusions by regulatory and safety officials. Such limited intrusions as warrantless safety and document checks of vessels are undoubtedly constitutional. United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc); and the mobility of an ocean vessel in many ways exceeds that of a car, justifying warrantless intrusion without probable cause for customs inspection far from the technical borders of the United States. United States v. Ingham, 502 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 421 U.S. 911, 95 S.Ct. 1566, 43 L.Ed.2d 777 (1975). Given such characteristics, the privacy expectations of a boat owner are necessarily limited. See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973)
Appellant argues at length that the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that the deputies seized the chart before the boat was towed in. The record is admittedly unclear as to when the chart was found, but in view of our decision concerning the legality of the search as a whole, we find it unnecessary to decide exactly when the chart was discovered
Indeed, had the authorities restricted their search to investigating the Woolwich post office box address, they would have found themselves with an empty house, no further information on the apparently lost mariners, and several hours lost
Nothing in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) is to the contrary. Mincey dealt with a proffered "homicide scene" exception to the warrant requirement where there was no possibility that injured victims still needed aid and where all victims of the incident had been located. Mincey expressly distinguished the situation in the instant case. Finally, Mincey dealt with a four-day, minute search of a dwelling; we deal with a brief examination of a vessel constantly subjected to official contact
Given the number of challenges made by the appellant and the limited argument addressed to the original stop, we are not surprised by and cannot fault this single omission
The record does not support the government's contention at oral argument that appellant may have consented prior to seizure of his license and registration. Deputy White's testimony on the sequence of events is to the contrary
We note in passing that, unlike the state law relating to most warrantless arrests, the special statute then governing warrantless arrests for drug possession and trafficking did not require the offense to be committed in the presence of an officer. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1113 (West Supp.1978) (repealed by P.L.1978 ch. 671 § 26). State law governing Deputy White's authority to arrest without a warrant expressly required only probable cause
Possession of less than 1 1/2 ounces of marijuana is not a criminal offense under Maine statutes. 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381
Defendant argues at length that the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that appellant unlocked both the door and the trunk of the vehicle. We note that the record supports appellant's contention that appellant unlocked the door and Drinan the rear hatch of the Blazer. Appellant's arguments are irrelevant, however, for two reasons. First, appellant's vehicle, a van without a separate trunk, was opened from stem to stern when he unlocked one door. More important, cooperation in opening any one of the routes into the vehicle is, in our view, just one piece of evidence amongst many that support an inference of consent-in-fact
Indeed, the evidence supporting an inference of consent is stronger in this case than it was in Robbins. In Robbins the officer and the occupant exchanged no words. In this case, Agent Drinan asked appellant if he could open the combination lock and appellant replied that he would try. Such a response is closely akin to the express permission to enter that the dissent felt should be required in Robbins, 364 F.2d at 52-54 (Coffin, J., dissenting)
We are not convinced by appellant's argument that Drinan coerced consent by asking appellant to cooperate and by pointing out the possible maximum sentences for smuggling. In United States v. Race, 529 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1976), we held that an hour-long negotiation with the prosecutor prior to consenting to search did not eliminate the voluntariness of that consent. Nor did Drinan's assertion that he would seek a warrant if appellant did not consent make consent involuntary. "Bowing to events, even if one is not happy about them, is not the same thing as being coerced." Robbins v. MacKenzie, supra, 364 F.2d at 50
Appellant does not object to the method of the search and we therefore need not reach the government's argument that seizure pursuant to a forfeiture statute permits a full-blown investigatory search of a vehicle. See United States v. Johnson, 572 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1978)
Appellant's last search and seizure argument does not merit discussion in the text. Few of appellant's minute objections to allegations in the affidavit seeking a warrant to search Mill Isle were properly preserved below. Those few objections properly raised below involve allegations that were neither intentional nor material misstatements. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)
We need not address appellant's arguments that his admissions were the tainted fruit of illegal searches and seizures (See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)) because we have found the evidence involved was legally obtained
We reject as untenable appellant's argument that he did not knowingly waive his right to remain silent at the bail hearing. He was represented by counsel and the magistrate warned him that anything he said could be used against him
"In determining the sentences appropriate in this case, this Court has considered with care the very comprehensive and thorough presentence report prepared for its consideration; it has considered the statement very ably made by the United States Attorney as to the factors which this Court should appropriately consider, and also has, of course, considered the very able statement by the defendant's counsel, Mr. Petruccelli
"At the outset, the Court is wholly convinced that the Jury arrived at the only verdict which it could have arrived in this case. There is not the slightest doubt in the mind of this Court of this defendant's guilt of all three of the charges in this Indictment. The Court is further concerned because in light of all the information concerning the defendant which has developed at the trial and in the subsequent investigation, it is entirely evident that this defendant is simply the tip of the iceberg; that he is one in what unquestionably must have been and may very possibly still be a very substantial criminal operation directed toward the importation of Marijuana and very possibly other elicit (sic) drugs into this country through the coastline of the State of Maine.
"The Court also can't close its eyes to the fact that the defendant has consistently declined to co-operate in any way with the prosecuting and investigating officials in their efforts to bring into Court all of those who are involved in this very substantial operation. The sums of money involved in this operation, as disclosed at the trial, (are) clearly beyond any capacity of this particular defendant before the Court. He is undoubtedly aware of the sources of those funds. He has consistently declined and refused to co-operate in determining what that source may be.