What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant. Consider the following categories: "not ascertained", "poor + wards of state" (e.g., patients at state mental hospital; not prisoner unless specific indication that poor), "presumed poor" (e.g., migrant farm worker), "presumed wealthy" (e.g., high status job - like medical doctors, executives of corporations that are national in scope, professional athletes in the NBA or NFL; upper 1/5 of income bracket), "clear indication of wealth in opinion", "other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy" (e.g., public school teachers, federal government employees)." Note that "poor" means below the federal poverty line; e.g., welfare or food stamp recipients. There must be some specific indication in the opinion that you can point to before anyone is classified anything other than "not ascertained". Prisoners filing "pro se" were classified as poor, but litigants in civil cases who proceed pro se were not presumed to be poor. Wealth obtained from the crime at issue in a criminal case was not counted when determining the wealth of the criminal defendant (e.g., drug dealers).

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Michael BERRY, Robert Hugh Wilson, and Donald Gene Richardson, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 76-2014, 76-2037 and 76-2038.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 31, 1978.
Rehearing Denied March 20, 1978.
The Hon. William J. Campbell, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is sitting by designation.
ON REHEARING
Before PELL and BAUER, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge.
BAUER, Circuit Judge.
In an opinion Issued on August 24, 1977, this Court determined that the warrantless search of an arrestee’s briefcase conducted after the arrest and while the briefcase was in police custody violated the Fourth Amendment under standards articulated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861 (7th Cir. 1977). In response to the Government’s Petition for Rehearing, we now grant the petition, and, without oral argument, vacate the earlier opinion as improvidently rendered. Our decision today rests on the conclusion that the exclusionary rule should not be applied retroactively to suppress evidence obtained from the pre-Chadwick search of an arrestee’s briefcase.
The problem of retroactive application of the exclusionary rule in a Fourth Amendment setting was squarely faced by the Supreme Court in United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975). Citing two major rationales for the exclusionary rule — the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations and the “imperative of judicial integrity” — the Court concluded that neither purpose would be served by excluding evidence that “law enforcement officers reasonably believed in good faith . was admissible at trial,” even if decisions subsequent to the search “broadened the exclusionary rule to encompass evidence seized in that manner.” United States v. Peltier, supra at 537, 542, 95 S.Ct. at 2317. Thus, according to the Court, the critical question in determining if the exclusionary rule should be applied retroactively on a given set of facts is not so much whether the decision invalidating the search “constitutes a sharp break in the line of earlier authority,” Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481, 499, 88 S.Ct. 2224, 2234, 20 L.Ed.2d 1231 (1968), but rather, “[whether] the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Peltier, supra, 422 U.S. at 542, 95 S.Ct. at 2320.
Relying on this formulation of the inquiry, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977), and the Second Circuit in United States v. Reda, 563 F.2d 510 (2nd Cir. 1977), have held that Chadwick is not to be applied retroactively. We find this position persuasive for, until Chadwick, there was no reason for law enforcement officials to believe that attache cases were not among those personal effects which, under United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973), could be seized as part of a “full search of the person” incident to a lawful arrest, and which, under United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974), could be searched several hours after the suspect had been taken into custody. More to the point, on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Robinson and Edwards, courts of appeals had held (prior to Chadwick) that law enforcement officials may indeed seize a briefcase or package in the possession of a person at the time of arrest, and subsequently search the property without a warrant after the arrested person has been taken into custody. United States v. Schleis, 543 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Battle, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 510 F.2d 776 (1975). See also United States ex rel. Muhammed v. Mancusi, 432 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1970).
In the light of this authority, we cannot say that the law enforcement officials here could be properly charged with knowledge that the search of Wilson’s briefcase was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Peltier, supra, 422 U.S. at 542, 95 S.Ct. 2313. For this reason, we decline to apply the exclusionary rule retroactively to suppress the evidence obtained from that search. Thus, our opinion of August 24, 1977 is hereby vacated and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The retroactivity issue was fully addressed in both the Government’s Petition for Rehearing and the Defendants-Appellants’ Answer. It was not raised by either party in the earlier proceedings, however, since Chadwick was decided by the Supreme Court after oral argument in this case.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant?

Choices:
not ascertained
poor + wards of state
presumed poor
presumed wealthy
clear indication of wealth in opinion
other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy

Answer: 0