Opinion ID: 234075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Apprehension.

Text: 4 Dr. Hayes purchased a Cadillac two door coupe motor number 5262-37869, on June 23, 1952 in his home city of Jacksonville, Florida. Lead and repainting replaced the manufacturer's emblems on the front and trunk of his automobile, from which the Cadillac V had been removed by the Doctor. There were about 13,000 miles of travel on this vehicle when it was stolen from the Doctor's residence in that city on January 22, 1953. Doctor Hayes positively identified, as his own, the Cadillac returned to him in February, 1953 by his insurance carrier. However, he qualified this identicalness by testifying that the motor number on the coupe returned to him was 'entirely different than the original number.' 5 Witnesses engaged in the business of buying and selling used cars, in Indianapolis, Indiana, described defendant's attempts, in the first week of February, 1953, to sell them a 1952 Cadillac coupe bearing Ohio license plates. The manufacturer's emblems were missing from the front and rear of this automobile which defendant tried to dispose of for cash. During his shopping expedition, defendant gave his name as Joseph D. Brewer. He told the use car dealers that he had an Indiana title and had purchased this Cadillac in Ohio. 6 It is uncontroverted, in this record, that the defendant is the man who tried selling a Cadillac to these witnesses and who gave the name Brewer. 7 While the defendant was bargaining with auto dealer, J. L. Concannon, a police officer, working in plain clothes, named Gerald Aikman, drove up to Concannon's place of business. Aikman was assigned to the Detective Division, stolen automobile detail for the City of Indianapolis. He arrived about the time defendant was in Concannon's office waiting to use the telephone. Because Concannon wanted to talk with Aikman 'about the car,' both of them went outside and sat in an automobile. Stirsman came out of Concannon's office and got into the Cadillac. In response to Concannon's exclamation-- 'Well wait just a minute,' Stirsman shouted that he was going to Murphy's and drove off at a high rate of speed in the opposite direction from Murphy Auto Sales. At this time, officer Aikman hollered 'halt. stop,' got into his police car and attempted to follow the Cadillac, but was unable to do so. This same afternoon Stirsman driving a 1952 Cadillac coupe with Ohio plates, was halted on U.S. 36 by State trooper Clevinger, who had received a 'call.' Stirsman gave his name to the trooper as Joseph Brewer, showed him an Indiana title and a Florida license. The trooper did not see Stirsman commit any violation of law and did not arrest him. 8 Officer Aikman arrived while Stirsman was in custody of the state police, but not under arrest. Having interposed an objection to a question put by the U.S. Attorney to Aikman concerning his conversation with Stirsman, the defense was permitted to break in and question Aikman. This inquiry by the witness Aikman, established that he did not have a warrant for the arrest of Stirsman; that he did not see him commit a felony or misdemeanor. City policeman Aikman did not arrest Stirsman for any 'criminal law violation,' but he did place him under arrest for 'investigation.' 9 When the United States Attorney took his witness back from defense counsel, he asked Aikman for the substance of his conversation with, and prior to the arrest of, Stirsman. Because of his objection, defense counsel was again permitted to take over the witness, and in response to his questioning, Aikman testified that in any case involving a car that is transported from one state to another, he works with the federal authorities. But upon resumption of his direct examination, Aikman testified that at the time he apprehended the defendant and had the conversation, he (Aikman) was not working in any degree with regard to this specific case with the federal authorities. 10 The pith of Aikman's testimony lies in his conversation with Stirsman. As officer Aikman related its substance, over defense objections, it appeared that Stirsman admitted that he might have said he was going to Murphy's as he departed Concannon's place of business. Stirsman showed Aikman a Social Security car, an army discharge and a duplicate Florida driver's license all in the name of Joseph David Brewer. Aikman checked the motor number 526286065 on the Indiana title, handed him by Stirsman, with the number under the hood of the Cadillac. They were the same. But, in studying that motor number, Aikman determined in his opinion, that it had been tampered with. 11 Aikman stated that he told Stirsman he was going to take him to state police headquarters and examine the Cadillac. 12 At headquarters Aikman examined the confidential number on the Cadillac and found it to be 5262-37869. 1 He explained to the court and jury that this confidential number is engraved some place on the motor and is only known to the National Auto Theft Bureau and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The public and confidential motor numbers are identical at time of assembly, but in this particular instance they were different. In Aikman's opinion the public motor number of this Cadillac had been tampered with. This confidential number and the motor number on the registration certificate of Dr. Hayes are the same according to Aikman. 13 Against this factual background, Stirsman seeks to infect Aikman's search and seizure with the taint of his allegedly illegal arrest of the defendant 'on suspicion,' fusing with this thesis his contention of cooperation between Aikman and federal authorities. Defendant uses this blending process in order to demonstrate the applicability here, of such cases as Gambino v. United States, 1927, 275 U.S. 310, 48 S.Ct. 137, 72 L.Ed. 293, and our decision in Fowler v. United States, 7 Cir., 1932, 62 F.2d 656. But where Mr. Justice Brandeis was able to point at a seasonable motion to suppress evidence in advance of the Gambino trial, 275 U.S. 310, 313, 48 S.Ct. 137, we find no similar pleading here. Nor do we need to go beyond the basic premise, on which the Gambino majority erected their opinion, viz, 'But facts of which we take judicial notice    make it clear that the state troopers believed that they were required by law to aid in enforcing the National Prohibition Act, and that they made this arrest, search, and seizure, in the performance of that supposed duty, solely for the purpose of aiding in the federal prosecution.' 275 U.S. 310, 315, 48 S.Ct. 137, 138. Our holding in Fowler v. United States, 7 Cir., 1932, 62 F.2d 656 was grounded on clear evidence of long established practice of cooperation between local police squads and federal prohibition officers. There we recounted daily conferences between city and federal authorities concerning violations of the National Prohibition Law in the City of Indianapolis. Here Stirsman relies upon a slender reed embedded in Aikman's preliminary examination by the defense, with which to launch his demonstration of cooperation between law enforcing agencies. But that bit of Aikman's testimony, just related, cannot be expanded to support defendant's argument. No federal officers participated in, or were present at, the search of the Cadillac, on U.S. 36, or even thereafter at state police headquarters. This record fails to supply evidence demonstrative of any subterfuge employed by federal officers to circumvent Stirsman's constitutional rights. Accord: United States v. Haywood, 7 Cir., 1953, 208 F.2d 156. We are satisfied that Aikman's search is not imputable to the federal government. His activities simply produced a windfall of evidence used in this subsequent prosecution. Serio v. United States, 5 Cir., 1953, 203 F.2d 576. Aikman's apprehension of Stirsman was consonant with several Indiana statutes 2 concerning stolen motor vehicles. Evidence traced on this record concerning Stirsman's activities among used car dealers; his abrupt departure, United States v. Heitner, 2 Cir., 1945, 149 F.2d 105, 107, from the last one, coupled with the distinguishing 3 characteristics of this Cadillac, makes it abundantly clear that halting this automobile on U.S. 36 was not a random or indiscriminate sampling of motor vehicles from the population traveling on that public highway. Cf. Carroll v. U.S., 1925, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543. Stirsman was traveling in the physical evidence bearing uncommon if not peculiar visible markings, with Aikman in pursuit of him. It would be unrealistic to insist, under the fluid state of affairs confronting Aikman when he reached the previously alerted troopers and Stirsman, that a search warrant should have first been obtained. Slight pressure on the gas pedal of the Cadillac would have effectively removed 4 both the evidence and Stirsman from the scene. Cf. Sisk v. State, Ind., 1953, 110 N.E.2d 627, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 838, 74 S.Ct. 60; see also Mills v. United States, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 196 F.2d 600. 14 But Stirsman points out that it matters not to him, whether federal or state officers illegally obtained this evidence since its impact on him remains the same regardless of which officer seized it. While this phase of his attack resembles a statement written by Mr. Justice Murphy in his separate concurring opinion in Lustig v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 74, 80, 69 S.Ct. 1372, 93 L.Ed. 1819, any further similitude fades on a reading of the Lustig facts. Because in the Lustig case, supra, United States secret service agent Greene brought local police into action and advised with them after he (Greene) had looked through the keyhole of the suspect hotel room. Thereafter, Greene remained at city police headquarters during the raid, he precipitated, by local officers who sent for Greene shortly after they invaded that hotel room. Greene himself acknowledged participation and it appears he sifted the evidence in the room as the search proceeded. Since the majority found this to be participation by federal officers they did not reach any question concerning a search entirely by State officers. We think that the statement contained in Mr. Justice Murphy's opinion is an observation resting solely on the peculiar facts of the Lustig case, supra, and that Stirsman cannot successfully expand it or persuasively argue a proposition like it, in this case since no federal officer was at or near the challenged search and seizure. It was not error to admit Aikman's testimony into evidence below. Scotti v. United States, 5 Cir., 1952, 193 F.2d 644; Lotto v. United States, 8th Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 623; Taylor v. Hudspeth, 10 Cir., 1940, 113 F.2d 825. 15 Our system of government draws its vitality from the spirit which emanates from the words collected and arrayed in the Constitution. And a critical examination of this record, with particular emphasis on those constitutional safeguards to which this defendant is entitled, leads us to the conclusion that Stirsman's constitutional rights have been preserved. But. we limit our holding to the facts of this specific case because we are not here announcing a general proposition applicable to all search and seizure cases where the government may subsequently present evidence illegally seized by police officers on the state level, without demonstrable participation by federal officers. 16 Since we find no evidence, within the bounds of this record demonstrating direct or indirect participation, by federal officers, Gilbert v. United States, 10 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 325, it is unnecessary to discuss the cumulative effect of either Stirsman's failure to move for suppression of this evidence or his status so to do. 17