Court Opinion

ID: 9463375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:04:36.754189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:03.593486
License: Public Domain

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the result of the majority opinion but feel that further clarification of the issue and a comment on appellant’s arguments is necessary.
*841Appellant’s main contention was that the drawing of weapons by the officers and the continued detention of appellant with his hands against the camper amounted to an arrest without probable cause, rather than an investigatory stop based on founded suspicion.
In support of his argument, appellant cites United States v. Bamos-Zaragosa, 516 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1975), United States v. Strickler, 490 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1974); and Taylor v. Arizona, 471 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 1130, 93 S.Ct. 948, 35 L.Ed.2d 262 (1973). These cases, however, as well as others cited by appellant, are factually distinguishable from the situation here.
The initial consideration must be whether appellant was stopped and detained in a necessary and reasonable manner. If so, then the degree of force shown on the part of the officers did not transform the stop into an arrest. Compare United States v. Richards, 500 F.2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied 420 U.S. 924, 95 S.Ct. 1118, 43 L.Ed.2d 393 (1975). This type of initial inquiry was suggested in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), where the Court noted that it could not blind itself to “the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves . in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest.” Id. at 24, 88 S.Ct. at 1881.
For example, in Ramos-Zaragosa, supra, an arrest was found where agents ordered an accused to stop and put up his hands “under circumstances not suggesting fears for their personal safety.” Id. at 144. This was not the situation in this case. Here the back windows of the camper were curtained and covered with reflecto screens. The officers were justified in having weapons ready, particularly when they had observed four persons around the camper a few minutes before and only one was observed when it was stopped. The hour was late and it was dark. As has already been observed, conditions were perfect for an ambush.
Once the stop had been properly made, there was probable cause to search. I note that appellant does not contend otherwise.
For the reasons given above, the officers’ actions did not amount to an arrest without probable cause and the seizure of the marijuana was not the fruit of an illegal arrest.