Court Opinion

ID: 9457790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:33:03.571086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:30.487192
License: Public Domain

DYER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. When Colbert and Reese observed the police officers, they placed the briefcases they were carrying on the sidewalk and started walking away. At the time of the arrest the briefcases were three to five feet from them. After denying ownership of the briefcases the defendants were placed in the police car. The officers opened the briefcases and found the guns in them.
In my view we should stop trying to second guess law enforcement officers in this kind of a situation. I disagree that since the defendants were sitting in a patrol ear “they did not have access to their briefcases.” And I strenuously disagree that “at the time of the search [the briefcases] were not within the ‘immediate control’ of the defendants.” As the Supreme Court said in Chimel, “A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested.” Chimel v. California, 1969, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d 685. Unlike Coolidge, where the defendant was arrested inside his house and his parked car in his driveway was seized, taken to the station and searched the next day, one short lunge by either defendant would have made their briefcases and weapons readily accessible to them.
I entertain no doubt that this was an exigent circumstance, within the purview of Chimel and Coolidge, justifying the search.
I consider the defendants’ Miranda argument to be without merit. An exposition of my reasons is not required because the majority pretermitted this question. I would affirm the convictions.