Opinion ID: 2188035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Dangerous Weapon Charge.

Text: After the arrest the officer searched appellant and found on his person a .25 caliber automatic pistol loaded with six rounds of live ammunition. It was established that he had no license to carry it. Charged with carrying a dangerous weapon, 22 D.C.Code § 3204 (1961), appellant filed a motion to suppress on the ground that the police officer had no right to arrest because no misdemeanor was committed in his presence and hence the search and the seizure of the gun were unlawful. When the matter came on for hearing defense counsel stated that it was being directed to both the dangerous weapon charge and the disorderly charge, and the trial court stated that it would try the disorderly charge first, and such was done. Appellant's present attorney (who did not appear for him at the trial) argues that the defense had a right to proceed on the motion to suppress before the disorderly conduct charge was heard. He cites rules of the trial court [2] dealing with the manner and time of presenting pre-trial motions. But we find nothing in those rules to indicate that the motion to suppress should have been heard ahead of the disorderly conduct charge. On the contrary it seems clear that the trial judge adopted a sensible and practical sequence of procedure. Since the claim was being made that the arrest was invalid, it was logical to first hear evidence on the charge which led to the arrest. Appellant makes other claims of error relating to the conduct of the hearing. These are not supported by the record or are without legal substance. Finding no error, we order that the judgments of conviction be Affirmed.