Court Opinion

ID: 9469020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:29:55.565198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:10.485609
License: Public Domain

GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Jr., Chief Judge,
dissenting.
This case séems tó me to be governed by the result of the United States Supreme Court majority in Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 65 L.Ed.2d 410 (1980). That case involved the unauthorized exhibition of films as to which there was reason to believe that they might be found to be obscene. This case involved the warrantless and, hence, unauthorized seizure and chemical analysis of pills as to which there was reason to believe that they might be illegally possessed controlled substances. In both instances I believe that the Fourth Amendment required a search warrant before the federal investigative procedure was carried out.
In Walter, the opinion of Justice Stevens, seemingly concurred in on this issue by the majority of the Court, said as follows:
It is perfectly obvious that the agents’ reason for viewing the films was to determine whether their owner was guilty of a federal offense. To be sure, the labels on the film boxes gave them probable cause to believe that the films were obscene and that their shipment, in interstate commerce had offended the federal criminal code. But the labels were not sufficient to support a conviction and were not mentioned in the indictment. Further investigation — that is to say, a search of the contents of the films — was necessary in order to obtain the evidence which was to be used at trial.
The fact that FBI agents were lawfully in possession of the boxes of film did not give them authority to search their contents. Ever since 1878 when Mr. Justice Field’s opinion for the Court in Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 [24 L.Ed. 877], established that sealed packages in the mail cannot be opened without a warrant, it has been settled that an officer’s authori*921ty to possess a package is distinct from his authority to examine its contents. See Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 758 [99 S.Ct. 2586, 2589, 61 L.Ed.2d 235]; United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 10 [97 S.Ct. 2476, 2482, 53 L.Ed.2d 538].
Walter v. United States, supra at 654-55, 100 S.Ct. at 2400 (footnote omitted).
Since the Rodriguez case, (United States v. Rodriguez, 596 F.2d 169 (6th Cir. 1979)) discussed in Judge Martin’s opinion was decided before this court had the benefit of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Walter v. United States, supra, in my view it cannot govern our current decision.
I would reverse the judgment of the District Court.