Opinion ID: 396890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Warrantless Search

Text: 10 When the DEA agents arrested appellant in front of his house, they conducted a warrantless search of the trunk of his automobile and found the suitcase. Appellant moved below to suppress the suitcase, on the ground that the agents needed a warrant to enter the trunk. The district court properly denied appellant's motion. The agents knew that the automobile was carrying heroin, and they therefore had probable cause to believe that the automobile could be seized and forfeited pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 782 and 21 U.S.C. § 881. 2 They were entitled to search the trunk without a warrant even though they did not seize the automobile. United States v. Panebianco, 543 F.2d 447, 456 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1103, 97 S.Ct. 1128, 51 L.Ed.2d 553 (1977); United States v. La Vecchia, 513 F.2d 1210, 1215-17 (2d Cir. 1975); United States v. Francolino, 367 F.2d 1013, 1018-22 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 960, 87 S.Ct. 1020, 18 L.Ed.2d 110 (1967). 11 The search of the suitcase itself, in contrast to the search of the trunk, was a minor issue below. See Transcript at 17-30, 163-71. Although it is unclear whether appellant objected to this search, the trial judge indicated that the suitcase, once taken from the trunk, was properly searched under the controlled delivery theory of United States v. Bulgier, 618 F.2d 472 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 843, 101 S.Ct. 125, 66 L.Ed.2d 51 (1980), and United States v. Andrews, 618 F.2d 646 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824, 101 S.Ct. 84, 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980). Those cases hold that, after private airline employees discover narcotics in a package and turn it over to the police, the police may make a controlled delivery of the package to the intended recipient and then search it without a warrant. The trial judge properly applied those cases here to uphold the search. See United States v. De Berry, 487 F.2d 448, 450-51 (2d Cir. 1973). 12 On appeal, appellant has not pressed his objection to the search of the suitcase. Subsequent to the argument of this case, however, the Supreme Court ruled that a closed piece of luggage found in a lawfully searched car is constitutionally protected to the same extent as are closed pieces of luggage found anywhere else. Robbins v. California, --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 2845, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981) (plurality opinion). Although the search of the suitcase here was supported by the strongest probable cause imaginable (i. e., the agents knew that the suitcase contained heroin because they had placed it there), the Supreme Court appears to have ruled that the existence of probable cause cannot excuse the need for a warrant. Id. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 2844-45. 13 Nevertheless, Robbins does not require suppression of the contents of the suitcase here. As a threshold matter, appellant lacks standing to object to the search of the bag. Appellant has insisted throughout the trial and the appeal that the suitcase is not his and that he was duped into claiming it. By his own admission, therefore, appellant could not have had any expectation of privacy as to the suitcase's contents. Thus, even if the search was illegal, it did not violate appellant's Fourth Amendment rights. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561-62, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 2552-55, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-40, 99 S.Ct. 421, 425-29, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); United States v. Goshorn, 628 F.2d 697, 699-701 (1st Cir. 1980). 14 The rationale of Robbins, moreover, is inapplicable to this case. In Robbins, the warrantless search of the luggage compartment was permissible under the automobile exception; but the Court held that the two factors underlying that exception-the inherent mobility of an automobile and the diminished expectation of privacy that surrounds it-do not justify warrantless searches of closed containers inside the automobile. --- U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 2845. Here, by contrast, the warrantless search of appellant's automobile was permissible because the car was subject to statutory forfeiture. Once the automobile was seized, appellant lost any expectation of privacy, at least as to the very article contained in the car that justified the forfeiture. Cf. United States v. Zaicek, 519 F.2d 412, 414-15 (2d Cir. 1975) (reversing suppression of contents of attache case found in trunk; search was permissible because car was properly seized). In fact, the heroin and the suitcase were themselves subject to forfeiture as a controlled substance and its container, and therefore no property right ... exist(ed) in them. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a) (1), (3); see United States v. Ledesma, 499 F.2d 36, 39-40 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1024, 95 S.Ct. 501, 42 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974). 15 Finally, even if Robbins were construed or extended to reach the situation presented here, appellant would not be entitled to reversal. Robbins would likely not be applied retroactively to require suppression of evidence where probable cause for the search existed. Its application here would have no deterrent value, but only demoralizing effect. See generally United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 535-39, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 2316-18, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975); United States v. Reda, 563 F.2d 510, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 973, 98 S.Ct. 1617, 56 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978). Moreover, any error in admitting the contents of the suitcase was harmless: appellant conceded that he had claimed the suitcase in question; the suitcase itself was properly seized from the trunk of his car; and the agents and airline personnel involved testified without contravention that the suitcase seized was the same one that appellant had claimed, in which the heroin had been found, and in which a heroin exemplar had been left. Modica would therefore have been proved to have possessed heroin even if the heroin left in the suitcase had not been introduced. Cf. United States v. Cirillo, 499 F.2d 872, 888 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1056, 95 S.Ct. 638, 42 L.Ed.2d 653 (1974) (affirming heroin conviction despite absence of direct proof that paper bag contained heroin; There was ample circumstantial evidence that the bag contained heroin.)