Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/664/860/198250/
Timestamp: 2019-12-14 08:05:47
Document Index: 428482510

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 812', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 2518', '§ 881']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Vincent Martino, John Torrioni, Policardo Despaigne, A/k/a"paulie," Odell Miller, A/k/a "pluggy," Johnradice, and John Perry, Defendants-appellants, 664 F.2d 860 (2d Cir. 1981) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Second Circuit › 1981 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Vincent Martino, John Torrioni, Policardo Despaigne...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Vincent Martino, John Torrioni, Policardo Despaigne, A/k/a"paulie," Odell Miller, A/k/a "pluggy," Johnradice, and John Perry, Defendants-appellants, 664 F.2d 860 (2d Cir. 1981)
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 664 F.2d 860 (2d Cir. 1981) Argued April 22, 1981. Decided Nov. 5, 1981
Defendants Vincent Martino, John Torrioni, Policardo Despaigne, a/k/a "Paulie," Odell Miller, a/k/a "Pluggy," John Radice, and John Perry appeal from judgments of conviction entered after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Lloyd F. MacMahon, Chief Judge. Count One of the three-count indictment charged all six defendants with conspiring to distribute heroin and cocaine between January and October 1980 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1976). Count Two charged Martino with distributing and possessing heroin with intent to distribute it on May 1, 1980, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a) (1) and 841(b) (1) (A) (1976); and Count Three charged him with possession of heroin with intent to distribute it on June 12, 1980, in violation of the same sections. The jury found each defendant guilty as charged.
It is elementary that the probable cause needed to validate the issuance of an authorization for a wiretap must exist at the time of issuance. United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 800, 809 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); see United States v. Kirk, 534 F.2d 1262, 1274 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 906, 97 S. Ct. 1174, 51 L. Ed. 2d 581, 433 U.S. 907, 97 S. Ct. 2971, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1091 (1977); United States v. Tortorello, 342 F. Supp. 1029, 1037 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), aff'd, 480 F.2d 764 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866, 94 S. Ct. 63, 38 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1973). Cf. Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 210-11, 53 S. Ct. 138, 140, 77 L. Ed. 260 (1932) (search warrant); United States v. Perry, 643 F.2d 38, 49-50 (2d Cir. 1981) (search warrant). See 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 3.7(a) (1978). The determination of whether information presented in support of an application is sufficiently current to support a finding of probable cause is one that must be made on the basis of the facts of each case. Sgro v. United States, supra; United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 560 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 946, 100 S. Ct. 1345, 63 L. Ed. 2d 781, 446 U.S. 912, 100 S. Ct. 1842, 64 L. Ed. 2d 266 (1980). Although many factors will have some relevance, see 1 LaFave, supra, § 3.7(a), the principal factors in assessing whether or not the supporting facts have become stale are the age of those facts and the nature of the conduct alleged to have violated the law. Where the supporting affidavits present a picture of continuing conduct or an ongoing activity, as contrasted with isolated instances of illegal acts, the passage of time between the last described act and the presentation of the application becomes less significant. United States v. Hyde, 574 F.2d 856 (5th Cir. 1978); Mapp v. Warden, 531 F.2d 1167, 1171-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 982, 97 S. Ct. 498, 50 L. Ed. 2d 592 (1976); United States v. Johnson, 461 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir. 1972).
In the present case District Judge Pierre Leval issued the warrant authorizing the wiretap on Martino's telephone, making the probable cause determinations required by the statute. His findings, which are entitled to deference, see, e. g., United States v. Perry, supra; United States v. Jackstadt, 617 F.2d 12, 13 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 966, 100 S. Ct. 1656, 64 L. Ed. 2d 242 (1980); Mapp v. Warden, supra, are amply supported by the facts presented in the affidavit of DEA Special Agent Martin Maguire. That affidavit, which has in no way been impugned by Martino, relied in large part on information provided by two persons: one was DeFelice, who was not identified by name, but was described as a confidential informant who had already supplied DEA agents with information on three occasions leading to six arrests and six convictions for violations of federal narcotics laws, see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964); the other person was LaCilento, the companion who had introduced DeFelice to Martino. LaCilento, an unknowing target of the investigation, had had several conversations with DEA Special Agent Ronald Catanese, who was operating in an undercover capacity. The Maguire affidavit showed that on a number of occasions between March 27, 1980, and May 6, 1980, Martino was engaged in narcotics trafficking. On March 27, DeFelice and LaCilento observed in Martino's apartment a large quantity of cocaine and about $10,000 in small bills. During that visit, Martino received three drug-related telephone calls, apparently from three different persons; Martino told one caller that he owed Martino $38,000. On March 28 and April 3, LaCilento told Catanese that Martino was his source for heroin and high quality cocaine. On May 1, DeFelice purchased heroin from Martino. On May 6, DeFelice made his final payment for the heroin purchased on May 1, and observed in Martino's apartment two ounces of powder that appeared to be cocaine. On that date, Martino told DeFelice that Martino could sell two kilograms of heroin for $90,000 within the next ten days.
Martino's next contention, that other investigative techniques should have been used in preference to a wiretap, fares no better. Although § 2518(3) (c) requires a finding that "normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried, ...," the statute does not require that all possible techniques be tried before a wiretap may be authorized. E. g., United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269, 1282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 981, 100 S. Ct. 484, 62 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1979), 444 U.S. 1019, 100 S. Ct. 674, 62 L. Ed. 2d 649 (1980); United States v. Fury, 554 F.2d 522, 529-30 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910, 97 S. Ct. 2978, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1095 (1977), 436 U.S. 931, 98 S. Ct. 2831, 56 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1978); United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002, 1011 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980, 97 S. Ct. 493, 50 L. Ed. 2d 589 (1976), 429 U.S. 1051, 97 S. Ct. 764, 50 L. Ed. 2d 767, 429 U.S. 1066, 97 S. Ct. 796, 50 L. Ed. 2d 783, 430 U.S. 982, 97 S. Ct. 1677, 52 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1977). As we stated in United States v. Fury,
the purpose of these "other investigative techniques" requirements "is not to foreclose electronic surveillance until every other imaginable method of investigation has been unsuccessfully attempted, but simply to inform the issuing judge of the difficulties involved in the use of conventional techniques." ... Moreover, the required showing is to "be tested in a practical and commonsense fashion." 1968 U.S.Code & Admin.News, supra, at p. 2190. In short, the requirement is "simply designed to assure that wiretapping is not resorted to in situations where traditional investigation techniques would suffice to expose the crime." United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143, 153 n.12, 94 S. Ct. 977, 982, 39 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1974).7
7. And the more traditional surveillance techniques need not be exhausted first if they are "impractical" or "costly and inconvenient." United States v. Robertson, 504 F.2d 289, 293 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 913, 95 S. Ct. 1568, 43 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1975) (undercover agents).
The starting point for analysis of a Fourth Amendment claim is the principle that "a search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is 'per se unreasonable ... subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.' " Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2043, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973). The government contends that the warrantless entry into Martino's yard was lawful under the "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement. While it is not clear to us that a general exception for exigent circumstances has been 'well -delineated,' we agree that under the circumstances existing here, the entry and seizure were lawful.
Although the Supreme Court has not ruled directly on the existence of an exception for exigent circumstances, we have noted previously, see United States v. Vasquez, 638 F.2d 507, 530 (2d Cir. 1980), that recognition of such an exception is consistent with dicta in a number of Supreme Court cases such as Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980), and Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436 (1948). See also New York v. Belton, --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2862, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1981) (" 'the exigencies of the situation' may sometimes make exemption from the warrant requirement 'imperative.' "); Steagald v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S. Ct. 1642, 1647, 68 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1981) ("The search at issue here took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. Except in such special situations, we have consistently held that the entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless done pursuant to a warrant."). Our Court has ruled that when law enforcement officers have lawfully entered premises to effect an arrest, they are entitled to make a quick and limited "security check" of the premises to be sure there are no third persons present who might destroy evidence or pose a safety threat to the officers. United States v. Gomez, 633 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994, 101 S. Ct. 1695, 68 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1981); see United States v. Agapito, 620 F.2d 324, 335-36 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 834, 101 S. Ct. 107, 66 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1980). Further, we have held that where a lawful arrest was made on the street outside the defendant's apartment, and the officers had a legitimate basis for believing there were other persons inside the apartment who were likely to be aware of the arrest and therefore might destroy evidence in the apartment, a warrantless entry into and security check of the apartment was permissible. United States v. Vasquez, supra. Accord: United States v. Baker, 577 F.2d 1147, 1152 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 850, 99 S. Ct. 154, 58 L. Ed. 2d 153 (1978); United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168-69 (5th Cir. 1977).
The instant case presents a somewhat different, but no less compelling, set of circumstances which we believe justifies a warrantless entry into a yard to prevent the removal or destruction of evidence. The DEA agents lawfully placed Martino under arrest, and were eager both to apprehend his coconspirators, Radice and Perry, who had just delivered a million-dollar package of heroin, and to take custody of the heroin. Because of Martino's evasive driving to the rendezvous in Queens, however, and because trees had impeded the planned helicopter surveillance, only two DEA agents, Maguire and Toal, were present at the time of Martino's arrest. Maguire took charge of Martino, leaving Toal to accomplish the other objectives. Toal ran to DeFelice and learned that Martino had put the heroin on a chair in the yard and placed a telephone book over it. Toal entered the yard, retrived the bag, looked into it, and immediately ran off to chase Radice and Perry. Martino may have had privacy expectations in his yard which were disappointed by Toal's entry, see Wattenburg v. United States, 388 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1968) (open yard 20-30 feet from lodge protected by Fourth Amendment); but see Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210-11, 87 S. Ct. 424, 427, 17 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1966) (home "converted into a commercial center" by invitation of government agent to enter and sale therein of narcotics to agent). But the circumstances in which Toal was required to act provided no reasonably satisfactory alternative. The agents had learned through the wiretaps that accomplices of Martino were in the habit of frequenting his premises. Thus, had Toal foregone the opportunity to seize the heroin in order to pursue Radice and Perry he would have chanced the theft or destruction of the heroin in his absence, either by accomplices of Martino (perhaps even by Radice and Perry who apparently had doubled back: they were encountered minutes later proceeding toward Martino's house), or by an occupant of the house, or by any other person inclined to enter a yard at 7 o'clock on a summer evening. On the other hand, for Toal to have guarded the yard, awaiting the arrival of additional agents who could telephone for a search warrant, would have allowed Radice and Perry to escape. We conclude that the considerable risk that if Toal did not enter the yard and seize the heroin he would allow either the contraband or the culprits to get away, presented circumstances sufficiently exigent to warrant Toal's unauthorized entry into the yard and seizure of the heroin.
Finally Martino contends that even if Toal's seizure of the brown paper bag containing the heroin was lawful, the inspection of the contents of the bag was unlawful in the absence of a search warrant. Law enforcement officers in lawful possession of a receptacle may search the receptacle if there is probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime and if its owner has no reasonable, independent expectation of privacy in that receptacle once it has been removed from his custody or control. E. g., Robbins v. California, --- U.S. ----, 101 S. Ct. 2841, 69 L. Ed. 2d 744 (1981); Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S. Ct. 2586, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1979); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1977); United States v. Mannino, 635 F.2d 110, 114-15 (2d Cir. 1980). The government argues that no paper bag is entitled to such an independent privacy protection, and that in any event Martino did not exhibit the requisite privacy expectation in the bag at issue here. We agree with the latter proposition.
In determining whether an owner has a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in a container that has been lawfully seized, most federal courts of appeals have considered that an important factor is the nature of the container. Distinguishing between items such as luggage or purses, which have a " 'fundamental character as a repository for personal, private effects'," and impermanent, insecure types of containers, such as paper bags, that offer at best only minimal protection against intrusions, see United States v. Mannino, supra 635 F.2d at 114, quoting Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, 442 U.S. at 762 n.9, 99 S. Ct. at 2592 n.9, most Circuits, including our own, have concluded that paper bags that are unsealed and unsecured generally do not warrant independent constitutional protection. See, e. g., United States v. Mefford, 658 F.2d 588 (8th Cir. 1981); Virgin Islands v. Rasool, 657 F.2d 582 (3d Cir. 1981); United States v. Sutton, 636 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Brown, 635 F.2d 1207, 1211 (6th Cir. 1980); United States v. Goshorn, 628 F.2d 697, 700-01 (1st Cir. 1980); United States v. Mackey, 626 F.2d 684, 687 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Jimenez, 626 F.2d 39, 41 (7th Cir.) (semble), vacated and remanded, --- U.S. ----, 101 S. Ct. 3152, 69 L. Ed. 2d 1000 (1981). The rationale supporting these conclusions is not so much that an individual does not have some subjective expectation of privacy in a paper bag, but rather that such an expectation may so easily be thwarted in so many ways that the subjective expectation is not generally felt to be entitled to constitutional recognition. As stated in United States v. Mackey, supra,
626 F.2d at 687. See also dissent on this issue by Judge Tamm in United States v. Ross, 655 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (en banc) (Tamm, J., dissenting in part), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 102 S. Ct. ----, 69 L. Ed. 2d --- (Oct. 13, 1981):
In keeping with this line of analysis, our Court has held that a paper bag that was not sealed but was merely folded closed and placed inside a white plastic bag that was also folded closed was not protected by any independent expectation of privacy. United States v. Mannino, supra. And we have held that a paper bag sealed with tape is not entitled to such protection where its contents were easily discernible by feeling the outside of the bag. United States v. Ocampo, 650 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1981). See also United States v. Delos-Rios, 642 F.2d 42, 46 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S. Ct. 2024, 68 L. Ed. 2d 330, --- U.S. ----, 101 S. Ct. 2025, 68 L. Ed. 2d 330 (1981) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in partially open paper bag). On the other hand, we have recognized a protected expectation of privacy in a securely taped plain cardboard box. United States v. Dien, 609 F.2d 1038, 1044-45 (2d Cir. 1979), adhered to on rehearing, 615 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1980).
The view among the Circuits that proper analysis of this issue turns in large part on the nature of the container, however, is not unanimous. In United States v. Ross, supra, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc, held, with four of the eleven judges dissenting, that an untaped brown paper bag was entitled to independent privacy protection, concluding that Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, "did not establish a 'worthy container' rule encompassing bags of leather but not of paper." 655 F.2d at 1161. Strong support for the Ross view is found in the recent plurality opinion of the Supreme Court in Robbins v. California, supra, 101 S. Ct. at 2843-47.
In Robbins, the Court reversed the denial of a motion to suppress packages wrapped in green opaque plastic, which had been placed in a recessed luggage compartment in a station wagon and were seized during a lawful warrantless search of the station wagon. After reviewing the Court's earlier decisions in Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, and other cases, the plurality opinion by Justice Stewart concluded that unless a container "is such that its contents may be said to be in plain view, those contents are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment." 101 S. Ct. at 2846. The plurality saw no foundation in the language of the Fourth Amendment for analysis on the basis of either the type of container or the nature of its contents. Thus, the opinion rejected the argument that only substantial containers traditionally used to "carry personal effects" were entitled to protection, stating that
Robbins v. California, supra, 101 S. Ct. 2849, Justice Powell concurred in the result "because the manner in which the package at issue was carefully wrapped and sealed evidenced petitioner's expectation of privacy in its contents." Id. at 2847. Justices Blackmun, Rehnquist, and Stevens dissented in separate opinions, each expressing the view that a search warrant should not be required for the search of any personal property found in an automobile when the automobile itself could lawfully be searched. Id. at 2851 (Blackmun, J., dissenting), 2851-55 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), 2855-59 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
Since the Chief Justice concurred only in the judgment in Robbins and Justice Powell rejected the reasoning of Justice Stewart's opinion, no single rationale was endorsed by a majority of the Court. In these circumstances, the teaching of the Supreme Court is that "the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds ... Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.15, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 2923 n.15, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)." Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S. Ct. 990, 993, 51 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1977). See Note, The Precedential Value of Supreme Court Plurality Decisions, 80 Colum. L. Rev. 756 (1980); Note, Plurality Decisions and Judicial Decisionmaking, 94 Harv. L. Rev. 1127 (1981). Although neither Gregg v. Georgia, supra, nor Marks v. United States, supra, elaborated on what was meant by "narrowest grounds," we construe that phrase, for present purposes, as referring to the ground that is most nearly confined to the precise fact situation before the Court, rather than to a ground that states more general rules. We find support for this construction in the fact that "(t)he Supreme Court itself has generally regarded the narrowest ground as the rationale offered in support of the result that would affect or control the fewest cases in the future." Note, supra, 80 Colum. L. Rev. at 764.
Moreover, although there is no suggestion in the record that Agent Toal was able to ascertain the contents of the package either by looking at it, see Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, 442 U.S. at 764 n.13, 99 S. Ct. at 2593-94 n.13, or "simply by feeling the outside of the bag," United States v. Ocampo, supra, 650 F.2d at 428-29, it is clear that he was well aware of the contents (practically to the nearest gram) because of Martino's own prior statements. Thus, prior to the rendezvous with Radice and Perry, Martino had told DeFelice that he would supply one-half kilo of pure heroin, and DeFelice so informed the DEA agents before the trip to Martino's house. When Martino received the package, he told DeFelice, "There is your stuff," a statement they both understood to mean, "There x your half-kilo of nearly pure heroin." Martino's revelation of the contents of the bag demonstrates at the very least a reduced expectation of privacy. See Robbins v. California, supra, 101 S. Ct. at 2854 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); United States v. Candella, 469 F.2d 173, 175 (2d Cir. 1972) (defendant's "statement (to the arresting officers) that the guns were in the containers" had the "practical effect" of putting the guns in "plain view.") Any time an individual discloses the contents of a package, he reduces his ability to keep the contents secret. When the disclosure is made to a government informant, there is no further reasonable expectation of privacy.
After the DEA cars were parked on Columbus Avenue, Agent Mitchell advised Miller of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). Agents Gray and Mitchell then repeated the request for permission to search the apartment; Miller again refused. Agent Brogan, meanwhile, telephoned other DEA agents and learned that they were seeking a search warrant. Brogan then removed a four-foot-long sledge hammer from the trunk of the second government car, and Miller was informed that when the search warrant was obtained, if Miller did not provide keys to the apartment it would be necessary for the agents to break down the door.
The essence of conspiracy, of course, is agreement, and in order to prove a single conspiracy, the government must show that each alleged member agreed to participate in what he knew to be a collective venture directed toward a common goal. See generally United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603, 621-29 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 940, 100 S. Ct. 2163, 64 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1980). Given the members' conscious participation in such a collective venture, a single conspiracy does not become multiple conspiracies merely because a particular member does not know the identities of some other members. See, e. g., United States v. Gleason, 616 F.2d 2, 16 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1082, 100 S. Ct. 1037, 62 L. Ed. 2d 767, 445 U.S. 931, 100 S. Ct. 1320, 63 L. Ed. 2d 764 (1980); United States v. Paoli, 603 F.2d 1029, 1035 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 926, 100 S. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1979); United States v. Moten, 564 F.2d 620, 624-26 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 942, 98 S. Ct. 438, 54 L. Ed. 2d 304, 434 U.S. 959, 434 U.S. 974, 98 S. Ct. 531, 54 L. Ed. 2d 466 (1977); United States v. Taylor, 562 F.2d 1345, 1351 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 432 U.S. 909, 97 S. Ct. 2958, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1083, 434 U.S. 853, 98 S. Ct. 170, 54 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1977); United States v. Bynum, 485 F.2d 490, 495-96 (2d Cir. 1973), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 417 U.S. 903, 94 S. Ct. 2598, 41 L. Ed. 2d 209 (1974). Nor does a single conspiracy become multiple merely because a long period of time is spanned. E. g., United States v. Murray, 618 F.2d 892, 902 (2d Cir. 1980) (six years); United States v. Armedo-Sarmiento, 545 F.2d 785, 789-90 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 917, 97 S. Ct. 1330, 51 L. Ed. 2d 595 (1977) (four years). As we have long recognized, in many narcotics distribution networks the ultimate retailers may not know the identities of those who supply their wholesaler, and the retailers' identities may be unknown to those suppliers; but all are well aware that they are participating in a collective venture:
United States v. Bynum, supra, 485 F.2d at 495-96; United States v. Tramaglino, 197 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 864, 73 S. Ct. 105, 97 L. Ed. 670 (1952); United States v. Bruno, 105 F.2d 921 (2d Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 308 U.S. 287, 60 S. Ct. 198, 84 L. Ed. 257 (1939).
Miller and Torrioni contend that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that they were members of the conspiracy to distribute narcotics. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the government, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 469, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942), we reject their contentions.
The evidence against Miller consisted largely of seventeen intercepted conversations recorded during the wiretap of Martino's telephone. Although coded language was used by the participants in these conversations, there was evidence that the conversations were narcotics-related (see note 3 supra) . In one recorded conversation, for example, Miller asked Martino, "could it stand a 30 or whatever it is ...," a phrase Martino had explained generally to DeFelice as referring to the amount by which a given quantity of heroin could be expanded by the addition of diluents. When Miller was arrested, he denied ever having used the phrase "could it stand a 30...."
Thus I start, as I believe the majority does, with the proposition that this case is one which concerns the very limited situation in which the law enforcement officer(s) involved had no real opportunity to obtain a warrant, so that nothing I say bears upon the more usual case where only delay is involved in the obtaining of a warrant. But I have trouble with the concept that "exigent circumstances" alone can justify warrantless searches, and I do not read the majority opinion as saying that they do. To the individual law enforcement officer, the circumstances for a warrantless search and seizure always appear exigent. And I do not read any Supreme Court case as going so far as to hold that there is a categorical exception for "exigent circumstances," although some cases do refer to that phrase, see, e. g., New York v. Belton, --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2862, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1981); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 583, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1378, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980).
A case like this one, as the majority recognizes, is not readily soluble by examination of the property rights in the invaded place. Prior to Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967), Martino's backyard would have been considered "curtilage" entitled to some Fourth Amendment protection, see, e. g., Care v. United States, 231 F.2d 22, 25 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 932, 76 S. Ct. 788, 100 L. Ed. 1461 (1956). In an urban setting "curtilage" was treated more or less as coextensive with a fenced yard, e. g., Weaver v. United States, 295 F.2d 360 (5th Cir. 1961); Hobson v. United States, 226 F.2d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 1955), but the fact that the gate was open and that the type of fence opened the yard to public view in this case would-even under the old analysis-have cut the other way. See Polk v. United States, 291 F.2d 230, 232 (9th Cir. 1961), aff'd after remand, 314 F.2d 837 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 844, 84 S. Ct. 96, 11 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1963).
Since Katz v. United States and its reinforcement by, and perhaps expansion in, Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S. Ct. 421, 430, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978), both standing and the substantive scope of the Fourth Amendment are said to depend "not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place." Id. at 143, 99 S. Ct. at 430. See also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. at 361, 88 S. Ct. at 516 (Harlan, J., concurring). But just as, in Judge Henry Friendly's words, "(t)erming a particular area curtilage expresses a conclusion; it does not advance Fourth Amendment analysis," United States v. Arboleda, 633 F.2d 985, 992 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 917, 101 S. Ct. 1362, 67 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1981), the problem with the "expectation of privacy" approach-the "expectation" language of which was taken from Justice Harlan's concurring opinion, the validity of which he subsequently came to doubt, see United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 786, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1143, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453 (1971) (Harlan, J., dissenting)-is that the Katz formulation also "can, ultimately, lead to the substitution of words for analysis," id. As Professor Amsterdam teaches us, even while lauding the thrust of Katz as expanding rather than reconstructing the boundaries of Fourth Amendment protection, "(i)n the end, the basis of the Katz decision seems to be that the fourth amendment protects those interests that may justifiably claim fourth amendment protection." Amsterdam, Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment, 58 Minn. L. Rev. 349, 385 (1974). Of course, as he adds, "this begs the question." Id.
In other contexts I have indicated, and this court has held, that Professor Amsterdam's "regulatory" approach to the Fourth Amendment, requiring police rule-making so as to "confine police discretion within reasonable bounds," id. at 416, may make good sense. See United States v. Vasquez, 612 F.2d 1338, 1348 (2d Cir. 1979) (Oakes, J., dissenting) (airport search), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 907, 100 S. Ct. 2991, 64 L. Ed. 2d 857 (1980); United States v. Barbera, 514 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1975) (border search). Even if the Supreme Court were inclined to take this approach, however, which it has shown little sign of doing, but see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1401, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1979), it would be very difficult to devise a set of police rules that would cover the situation in the case at hand. Legal rules in such a case have a certain practical irrelevancy that brings to mind Michael Meltsner's observation that "no one feels so irrelevant as a lawyer in a shoot-out." See Amsterdam, supra, 58 Minn. L. Rev. at 378 (quoting M. Meltsner, Cruel & Unusual 36 (1973)). Perhaps this is what the Supreme Court is driving at in its references to "exigent circumstances"-the case is not amenable to pre-conceived rules.
Martino's expectations of privacy were greatly diminished here, if present at all. Not only was the heroin left in a chair in a yard with the gate open and the chair visible through the fence, but Martino had invited DeFelice, the confidential informant, to the yard "for the specific purpose of executing a felonious sale of narcotics," Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210, 87 S. Ct. 424, 427, 17 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1966).1 Martino's backyard had thereby been "converted into a commercial center to which (an) outsider() (was) invited for purposes of transacting unlawful business," id. at 211, 87 S. Ct. at 427. Thus, had DeFelice been a government agent, he could have removed the heroin after the arrest. Id. at 210-11, 87 S. Ct. at 427. See also Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 623-24, 6 S. Ct. 524, 528-29, 29 L. Ed. 746 (1886) (a search for and seizure of contraband is different from a search to obtain information); 21 U.S.C. § 881(a) (there is no property interest in controlled substances). As an informant, DeFelice may, I believe, be considered to have been acting as a government agent, see United States v. Valencia, 645 F.2d 1158, 1168-69 (2d Cir. 1980) (an informant is treated as an agent for entrapment purposes); what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In any event, agent Toal was simply following in DeFelice's footsteps, if not in his shoes.
Moreover, agent Toal not only had probable cause to believe the heroin was where he found it, but the fast-developing situation precluded resort to a magistrate. This is, I believe, the underlying basis for the "automobile exception" cases such as United States v. Mannino, 635 F.2d 110, 115 (2d Cir. 1980). That those cases involve vehicles that can be moved makes them none the less applicable in the balancing approach I favor here, where the heroin could as easily have been moved. To my mind, the "automobile exception," involving an underlying element of ready moveability absent which the "exception" is inapplicable, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971), may be viewed less mechanically as involving an underlying balancing such as I think is involved in this case.
The Fourth Amendment itself speaks in terms of "unreasonable searches and seizures," of course, and the Supreme Court has reminded us, albeit in a case involving a warrant (although it also involved contraband), that there are some cases turning simply on "applying the ultimate standard of reasonableness embodied in the Fourth Amendment." Michigan v. Summers, --- U.S. ----, ---- & nn. 11-12, 101 S. Ct. 2587, 2592-93 & nn. 11-12, 69 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1981). Here, where there was clearly and concededly probable cause, I have little difficulty in concluding that the warrantless search and seizure was, on balance, reasonable. I make this inquiry uncertain that my method of reaching this result is the proper one; I believe we need further enlightenment from Higher Authority.
Many, if not all, of the telephone conversations used coded language to obscure the fact that narcotics were the subject of the conversations. Some coded language or slang was explained by Martino to DeFelice during their meetings. For example, when Martino was assuring DeFelice that the quality of some heroin Martino had available was sufficiently high to be cut with a large amount of diluent, he said, "The thing is that it stands a twenty-five"; "That means you could make twenty-five ounces out of (one ounce of) it." At trial, DeFelice explained the meanings of various slang terms used in his conversations with Martino. In addition, over defendants' objection, there was testimony from Frederick Sandler, a DEA agent who had worked in an undercover capacity on hundreds of occasions and in that capacity negotiated for and purchased heroin or cocaine more than 100 times. He had monitored some 15-20 wiretapped conversations relating to narcotics. Sandler testified that the words heroin and cocaine are rarely used in telephone conversations and that codes are used. He gave his opinion that the recorded conversations involved narcotics transactions and translated various portions of them for the jury. The district court properly instructed the jury that it need not accept Sandler's opinions and was free to draw its own conclusions as to the meanings of the conversations, and the receipt of this expert testimony was an entirely proper exercise of the court's discretion. United States v. Cirillo, 499 F.2d 872 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1056, 95 S. Ct. 638, 42 L. Ed. 2d 653 (1974); United States v. Borrone-Iglar, 468 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 981, 93 S. Ct. 347, 34 L. Ed. 2d 244 (1972), 410 U.S. 927, 93 S. Ct. 1360, 35 L. Ed. 2d 588 (1973); Fed.R.Evid. 702
It follows from this conclusion that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach. United States v. Robinson, supra; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S. Ct. 329, 3 L. Ed. 2d 327. Such a container may, of course, be searched whether it is open or closed, since the justification for the search is not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container, but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have.
S. Ct. at 2864 (footnotes omitted)
The district court found alternatively that the search of Miller's apartment was justified by exigent circumstances. Such circumstances arose when Miller, upon his arrest, shouted to an unidentified woman on the street to get keys from his neighbor, go to his apartment, and "make sure nothing happens to the money." The court found that there were an insufficient number of DEA agents on the scene to guard Miller, safeguard Miller's car which had been seized and was to be impounded, and protect their own vehicles, and in addition to secure Miller's apartment, especially since they did not know how many means of ingress there might be. While such circumstances probably would have justified the agents' entry into Miller's apartment, see United States v. Rubin, 474 F.2d 262 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 833, 94 S. Ct. 173, 38 L. Ed. 2d 68 (1973), they would have authorized no more than a quick security check of the premises to make sure no person was present, and a posting of guards to be sure no person entered, to destroy evidence before authorization to search was obtained. The envelope at issue on this appeal was found inside the drawer of a night table. The search of the drawer would not have been necessary as part of a security check based on exigent circumstances, and the seizure of the envelope would not have been sustainable on that basis. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969); United States v. Vasquez, supra, 638 F.2d at 532
Justice Stewart cited Lewis with approval in his opinion for the Court in Katz, 389 U.S. at 351, 88 S. Ct. at 511