Opinion ID: 339401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: wimbley's arrest and search

Text: 45 Appellant Wimbley was arrested in an apartment at 733 North Kings Road an hour after the execution of the search warrant for Calhoun's apartment. Eight officers possessing neither an arrest nor a search warrant entered the apartment unannounced, with guns drawn, having obtained keys from the manager. They found Wimbley reading in bed, arrested and handcuffed him. He was subsequently advised of his Miranda rights. 46 Wimbley contends there was no probable cause for his arrest in his home at night without a warrant. The government counters that there was probable cause and exigent circumstances which required immediate action. 47 We agree that there was probable cause to arrest. The observations of the officers for several months and the information supplied by informants directly connected Wimbley with the conspiracy. 48 After his arrest, the agents and Wimbley moved to the living room where the agents asked permission to search the apartment, telling Wimbley that either his permission or a search warrant would be required. Wimbley replied: Go ahead and search there's no narcotics here that I know of. (R.T. 2368). The agents found paraphernalia associated with the distribution of heroin. 49 Wimbley contends that these should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest. The government argues that the arrest was legal, exigent circumstances precluding the opportunity to procure a warrant; and even if the arrest were illegal, the government asserts, the evidence was uncovered after Wimbley's voluntary consent to search. Wimbley denies that the consent was voluntary. 50 Again, we apply the totality of the circumstances test set forth in Schneckloth to determine whether the district court's determination that Wimbley voluntarily consented to the search was clearly erroneous. Rothman, 492 F.2d at 1264. 51 Appellant was under arrest and handcuffed and the request to search came during the middle of the night. Before the request, Wimbley had faced drawn guns of several officers. His wife was handcuffed in an adjoining room and the agents testified that the atmosphere in the apartment was tense. 1 On the other hand, Wimbley was advised of his Miranda rights and he gave permission to search only after being told that he need not do so. 52 Viewing the totality of the circumstances that surrounded the search request and Wimbley's response, we conclude that the district court's determination that Wimbley voluntarily consented was clearly erroneous and the evidence resulting from the search should have been suppressed.