Court Opinion

ID: 9736171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:45:44.365562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:04.787318
License: Public Domain

NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I begin with some fundamentals. A trial is a search for truth. Application of the exclusionary rule blocks that search and thus the truth. Sometimes the suppression of the truth by use of the rule does not work an injustice because the trial process finds the truth from other admissible evidence. In this case, however, the greatest injustice is done by the use of the rule; an injustice not only to society but also to the hapless victim who must see her assailant go unpunished. Proof of guilt to near certitude is being excluded. Moreover, it is the only proof that Lewis committed this degrading, senseless and violent act — rectal abuse by inserting a stick into this female victim.
The exclusionary rule is being applied in this case without regard to the nature of the police intrusion and the extreme consequences of suppression of this compelling, and only, evidence of guilt. See Dickerson v. United States, 296 A.2d 708 (D.C.1972) (Nebeker, J., concurring). In my view, the integrity of the exclusionary rule, if it is to remain viable for use in cases of real police abuse, requires the court to permit the use of crucial evidence on any reasonable and available legal theory. See Vicks v. United States, 310 A.2d 247 (D.C.1973) (Nebeker, J., concurring). Accordingly, and after due consideration of the positions taken by the parties, I would reverse this death knell order of suppression for the reasons which follow.
In resolving a case like this one, we cannot be a slave to a case-matching exercise in which we treat myriad factors in one case as setting a threshold or minimum for the next. See United States v. Mason, 450 A.2d 464, 466 (D.C.1982). Each past case has factors different from the one at hand. The court’s role is to apply a rule of reason, not assume that because a precedent was based on certain factual elements it is thus inapposite or dictates a contrary result simply because one factor is lacking in the case at hand. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3478, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983), where the Court rejected a case-matching approach by the Michigan Court limiting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), to “only a limited pat-down search of a person.” The Court applied a broader rule of reason to protective searches in “roadside encounters between police and suspects.” Michigan v. Long, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 3480.
This is a roadside encounter case and thus Lewis, in commendable candor, does not dispute that Green had a reasonable basis upon which to stop and return him to the crime scene for a show-up. (Record at 54.) Lewis generally fit the description of the assailant and had mud on his pants and *737scratches and a swollen knuckle on one hand, suggesting recent violence. Thus, Green had an “articulable suspicion,” see, e.g., Wilkerson v. United States, 427 A.2d 923, 925 (D.C.1981), that Lewis had committed the crime and was justified in taking him to the scene. This was a “reasonable extension of the duration of the stop to await the outcome of further police investigation.” Id. at 926, quoting Harris v. United States, 382 A.2d 1016, 1019 (D.C.1978).
The question that arises is whether, given the reasonableness of the return of Lewis to the scene, the search of the blue knapsack was reasonable.1 It is well-settled that the Constitution prohibits not all searches, but rather those that are unreasonable. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1446, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960).
Given Officer Green’s version of how he discovered the victim’s knapsack, he could not have asserted an alternative rationale at the motions hearing at variance with his testimony. This court’s inquiry, however, is not bound by Green’s asserted but rejected version or his subjective state of mind or legal reasoning prior to the search. Rather, we must focus on whether it was objectively reasonable for him to conduct the search as the trial court found he did. See, e.g., Harris v. United States, 382 A.2d 1016, 1018 (D.C.1978); Arrington v. United States, 311 A.2d 838, 840 (D.C.1973); Bailey v. United States, 279 A.2d 508, 511 (D.C.1971); Von Sleichter v. United States, 267 A.2d 336, 339 (D.C.1970); Coleman v. United States, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 48, 58, 420 F.2d 616, 626 (1969) (Bazelon, C.J., concurring); Payne v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 94, 96, 294 F.2d 723, 725 (1961); Bell v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 387, 254 F.2d 82, 86 (1958) (arresting officer’s belief that arrest was for one offense but “legal lights in charge” decided the offense was something different. “Would the arrest have been invalid? Of course not.”).
In determining the reasonableness of the search of appellant’s knapsack, we must “balance [the] intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against [the] promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 2608, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983) (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)). When Green made his decision to return Lewis to the crime scene, he certainly could not have left the knapsack behind, as it might well have been stolen. Lewis would have a claim against the officer resulting from such a theft and might be inclined to provide false information about the knapsack’s contents. Id. 103 S.Ct. at 2609 (inventory search of arres-tee’s bag deterred false claims and inhibited the theft or careless handling of items taken from arrestee).
In rejecting the reasonableness of Officer Green’s search, the majority emphasizes the narrow scope of the Terry exception to the warrant requirement and asserts that any potential danger , to Green ended when Lewis placed the knapsack on the hood of the car. Such a narrow reading of Terry is not required, as evidenced by the Court’s language in the case itself.
We need not develop at length in this case, however, the limitations which the Fourth Amendment places upon a protective seizure and search for weapons. These limitations will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases.
Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at 29, 88 S.Ct. at 1884. And, in deciding whether an officer acted reasonably in a given situation, the crucial issue is whether a “reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.” Id. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883.
*738Here, Officer Green faced the prospect of transporting a suspect in a particularly violent and senseless crime along with a bag, the contents of which were unknown to him. His actions may therefore be deemed reasonable in searching it as a security measure. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that “suspects may injure police officers and others by virtue of their access to weapons, even though they may not themselves be armed.” Michigan v. Long, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 3480. Although Green stated that he was not afraid of Lewis and did not think Lewis was armed, the question remains whether an objective justification for the search existed. See Payne, supra, 111 U.S.App.D.C. at 96, 294 F.2d at 725. Whether Green actually feared that the knapsack contained weapons is unimportant, as the “need to protect against such risks arises independent of a particular officer’s subjective concerns.” Illinois v. Lafayette, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 2610 (citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 476, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973)).
Balancing the government’s strong interest in the safety of police officers and the public interest in bringing this defendant to book against the tempered manner of the search, it is evident that the search was reasonable. We must accept as fact Lewis’ version of the search. He testified that, “He [Green] asked me to take some of the stuff out of the bag so I took some of the stuff out of the bag and then he himself went into the bag and pulled out the knapsack.” (Record at 125.) This search was far less intrusive than those conducted routinely in public buildings and airports where security personnel take possession of bags at the outset and rummage through them.2 It was only after Lewis removed some items that the yellow knapsack came into view. When it did, the situation escalated to a point that it was then most reasonable to seize the yellow knapsack.
In its holding, this court fails to recognize an available ground upon which the search of the blue knapsack was justified. See United States v. Johnson, 182 U.S. App.D.C. 388, 391, 561 F.2d 832, 840 (1977). I again express “the hope that the only remaining reviewing authority will both have and seize the opportunity to reject the majority’s” holding. Crews v. United States, 389 A.2d 277, 306 (D.C.1978) (Harris, J., dissenting), rev’d, United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980).

. Although the government did not frame its appeal in these terms, this court’s authority is not limited by the way it chose to cast its arguments. See March v. United States, 362 A.2d 691, 697-98 (D.C.1976).

. Arguably, Green could have protected himself by placing the knapsack in the trunk of the scout car. But the reasonableness of his search did not turn on the existence of a less intrusive means of securing the knapsack. Illinois v. Lafayette, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 2610. Moreover, a pat-down of the knapsack which contained a number of hard, large articles, such as gym shoes and a radio, would not have sufficed as a security measure.