Court Opinion

ID: 9456215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:45:49.494013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:53.426986
License: Public Domain

*46COLEMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The views originally expressed at 433 F.2d 463 remain unchanged.
The majority adheres to its original view that Brookins could not lawfully have been arrested for the possession of an unregistered still. The ground is shifted to the entirely new proposition that he could have been lawfully arrested for carrying on the business of a distiller. There is no getting around the testimony of the trained and experienced agent that he arrested Brookins for possessing a still, NOT for carrying on the business of a distiller.
If, however, a factor which had nothing to do with the arrest when made is to be injected as a life-saving hypodermic for an invalid arrest, then I am of the opinion that there was no probable cause to arrest Brookins for carrying on the business of a distiller.
Walking through a field with a paper sack, even if in the direction of the distillery, is not enough for me to hold that' there was probable cause for an arrest for carrying on the business of a distiller. And this is especially true if, as in this case, there is already somebody at the distillery and operating it.
My highly esteemed Brethren of the majority say that “If Brookins had been arrested at the still itself, his presence there would have justified his conviction for carrying on the business of a distiller”. The point is that he was not at the still. I am unable to comprehend that walking in an open field on one’s property in the direction of a still can be made legally synonymous to being present at the still. What Brookins “might do” is not enough. The crucial factor is what he was actually doing when the officer stopped him.
I am compelled to dissent.