Opinion ID: 614361
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ninth Circuit Opinion

Text: We affirmed in a 2-1 opinion on December 9, 1968. Stonehill II, 405 F.2d at 738. The majority opinion largely reiterated the factual findings of the district judge. One key difference, however, was that in discussing the selections of the Picture Folder that Taxpayers had introduced, the majority concluded that the diagram prepared by Chandler of one premises and a memorandum prepared by him on another inadvertently fell into the hands of the NBI. They were not intended as directions to the NBI. Id. at 741 (emphasis added). The district court had found that the NBI had obtained the Picture Folder selections, but had not decided whether they had been inadvertently or intentionally provided to the NBI. The majority also discussed the incident, not mentioned by the district court, in which Chandler accompanied an NBI agent to the warehouse after the raid to help the NBI agent sort the files. Id. at 742. It also discussed the incident in which Chandler, after helping the NBI agent sort the files, drove to the U.S. Tobacco headquarters and asked the NBI agent in charge if they had found the record storage room Spielman had told both Chandler and the NBI about. The NBI agent did not seem to know about it and asked Chandler to point it out. Chandler stepped into the office, pointed out generally the location of the record storage area, and left. Id. The majority agreed with the district court's conclusions, specifically focusing on the following six factual findings: 1) No United States agent selected any evidence for use in a United States investigation or prosecution. . . . [T]he raids were initiated and planned by Philippine officers before United States agents became involved; the sole purpose of the raids was to obtain evidence for Philippine proceedings. 2) All activities of United States agents in connection with the raids took place before the raids commenced or after their termination. 3) Only after the raids were completed and the documents catalogued were the United States agents given permission to copy documents. . . . 4) There is no evidence that any United States agents were attempting to shortcircuit the Fourth Amendment rights of the taxpayers. . . . 5) The United States agents clearly objected to the raids, asking that the raids either not take place or at least that they be postponed. 6) When the United States agents made Spielman's information available to the Philippine authorities, they were not requesting any action whatsoever, much less instigating an unlawful search. Id. at 746. Judge Browning wrote an emphatic dissent. He first noted that the Philippine Supreme Court had already concluded that the raid violated the Philippine Constitution's equivalent of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 747 (Browning, J., dissenting). Judge Browning noted that the American agents contributed to the raid in at least these respects: They brought Spielman and his information to the attention of the Philippine authorities, and, as the majority finds, finally persuaded Spielman to meet with them. Chandler made his home available to the NBI for meetings with Spielman, and for the planning and preparation of the raids. Chandler attended these meetings. In the course of relaying information from Spielman to the NBI, Chandler prepared a diagram and a memorandum of two of the premises to be raided. Chandler suggested an additional location to be raided; and his suggestion was adopted. Chandler, prior to the raids, secured permission from Colonel Lukban to examine and copy records seized in the raids. After the raids had begun, Chandler and his two assistants, at Colonel Lukban's request, went to one of the premises being searched, and pointed out the significant books and records to be seized. From this search location the three American agents, on their own initiative, went to another. There Chandler inquired whether the NBI agents had found a records storage room which Spielman had mentioned, and upon discovering that they had not, Chandler pointed out the location of the storage room to the NBI agent in charge. Id. at 749-50 (footnotes omitted). Judge Browning criticized the majority for its pallid and somewhat misleading description of the relevant incidents. Id. at 750 n. 19. He noted that Chandler, after helping the NBI agent sort the documents, did not leave right away. He examined bobbins of cigarette paper (thought to have been illegally imported by Stonehill) in the warehouse, when the agent didn't seem to be familiar with the thing at all, and told the agent that he probably better check with Colonel Lukban. Id. Furthermore, at the U.S. Tobacco headquarters, Chandler not only told the agent to search a back room, but also showed him where the room was in the building. Id. at 750 n. 20. Finally, Judge Browning emphasized the inadequacy of the trial court's findings, and pointed out that the majority filled the gaps with questionable factfinding of its own. Id. at 752. The district court had made no finding whether the purpose of the raid was to obtain evidence for use in an American tax prosecution. Yet the majority specifically found that the purpose of the raid was to uncover violations of Philippine law, not to obtain evidence for the United States agents. Id. Judge Browning concluded that there was substantial evidence suggesting that the majority incorrectly characterized the purpose of the raid. Id. He also criticized the majority's finding that the diagram Chandler drew of the buildings to be raided inadvertently fell into the NBI's hands and was not intended to provide directions to the NBI, noting that the trial court had found only that the document had ended up in the NBI's possession. Id. at 753-54. Judge Browning pointed out that there was no evidence that its transfer to the NBI was, in fact, inadvertent. Id. at 754. Judge Browning concluded that [a]t the very least . . . reconsideration by the trial court is plainly required. Id. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Stonehill v. United States, 395 U.S. 960, 89 S.Ct. 2102, 23 L.Ed.2d 747 (1969).