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. Charles Gasper SALVO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-1020
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 3, 1971.
Certiorari Denied Oct. 19, 1971.
See 92 S.Ct. 218.
Robert C. Stone, J. Leonard Fleet, Hollywood, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Marsha L. Lyons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
[1] Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et. al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.24 409, Part I.
THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:
Charles Gasper Salvo was indicted for receiving and possessing 59 Westinghouse air conditioners, valued in excess of $100, and 67 cases of Miller’s High Life beer, valued in excess of $100, stolen while moving in interstate commerce, and knowing same to be stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. A jury subsequently found him guilty as charged, and he was sentenced to a period of incarceration of two and one-half years. He appeals, and we affirm.
During the course of the trial appellant moved for the suppression of the evidence on the grounds that there was no probable cause for the search of the premises upon which the stolen articles were found and no probable cause for his arrest. The district court denied the motion, a determination that appellant, as his first point of error, attacks as erroneous. The search and arrest were made in the following circumstances. Police officers, acting on the tip of an informant who had purchased a Westinghouse air conditioner bearing the serial number of one that had recently been stolen from a railroad boxcar in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, had placed under surveillance a certain blue panel truck and its occupants, two young men who were .believed to be involved in the theft. On the date in question the officers followed the truck to the rear of the Roman Candle Restaurant in Plantation, Florida. After the officers observed the men loading boxes into the truck, which was parked in an alley separating the shopping center in which the restaurant is located from the business adjacent to it, the officers advanced toward the suspects. While one officer walked toward the suspect in the truck, another officer walked toward the restaurant’s back door, which opened onto the alley. Through the open door he observed two uncrated air conditioners and stacks of boxes that bore the imprint “Westinghouse.” In addition, he saw a stack of red and white boxes marked “Miller.” When he identified himself as an officer, the subject inside the building slammed the door and bolted the' lock. The officer then entered the restaurant through a side door, located the owner, explained what had transpired, and secured his permission to search the storage room in which the subject was believed to be hiding and in which the beer and air conditioners were resting. Upon entering the room, the officer discovered that the subject had fled but had been apprehended by another officer. A canvass of the serial numbers of the air conditioners confirmed that they were indeed the stolen items. After learning from the restaurant’s owner that the stolen items had been placed in the storeroom by one Charles Salvo and a companion, the officers proceeded to the grocery store in which appellant was a part-time employee and placed him under arrest.
The Supreme Court has noted that “[I]t has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced into evidence.” Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 993, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968). In the instant matter the officer was lawfully in the alley that ran alongside the restaurant, and while standing there he merely observed what was within his plain view through the open door. Moreover, before actually entering the storage room in hot pursuit of a suspect, he secured the owner’s permission to search the room. Contrary to appellant’s contention, the officer’s actions do not constitute an illegal search. See Gil v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 666; Ponce v. Craven, 9th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 621, certiorari denied, 397 U.S. 1012, 90 S.Ct. 1241, 25 L.Ed.2d 424 (1970); Marullo v. United States, 5th Cir. 1964, 328 F.2d 361.
Nor was Salvo’s subsequent arrest without a warrant unconstitutional under Fourth Amendment standards. An arrest without a warrant is constitutionally valid if at the moment the arrest was made the arresting officers had probable cause to make it. “Probable cause” exists when the arresting officers have knowledge of facts and circumstances or reasonably trustworthy information that would lead a prudent man reasonably to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing an offense. Beck v. Ohio, 879 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 228, 225, 12 L.Ed.2d 142, 145; United States v. Lipscomb, 5th Cir. 1970, 435 F.2d 795; Russell v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 396 F.2d 771, 772. On the basis of the facts set out above, we hold that probable cause existed to justify Salvo’s arrest without a warrant. It follows that the district court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence.
Appellant makes the further contention that the trial judge, by his comments during the trial, intervened in a manner that deprived appellant of a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This Court has articulated the standards governing a trial judge’s conduct during the course of a trial in, inter alia, Bursten v. United States, 5th Cir. 1968, 395 F.2d 976, and Moody v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 377 F.2d 175. We have carefully measured the remarks made by the trial judge in the instant matter against these standards and found no basis for declaring that the remarks deprived appellant of a fair trial.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.

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