Court Opinion

ID: 9447664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:40:41.060456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:08.140420
License: Public Domain

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I concur in the holding that, inasmuch as the motion was made prior to indictment, the denial of the motion to suppress is an appealable order. I also agree with my colleagues that the warrant of arrest is invalid under Giordenello v. United States, 1958, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 and earlier cases. However, I am unconvinced that Agent Costa had “reasonable grounds” for arresting DiBella without possessing a valid warrant for his arrest. Therefore, I would hold that the subsequent search of the DiBella home cannot be justified as incidental to DiBella’s lawful arrest. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the arrest was a lawful one, I disagree with the conclusion the majority reach that the subsequent search is justifiable as incidental to the arrest.
As the majority opinion sets forth, the “reasonable grounds” contemplated by the Narcotics Control Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7607, are equivalent to the “probable cause” required under the Fourth Amendment, Draper v. United States, 1959, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327, and the quantity and quality of the evidence to substantiate “probable cause” need not be as great as that required for a determination of guilt. Jones v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697; Henry v. United States, 1959, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134; Draper v. United States, supra, Brinegar v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879; Carroll v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543.
In determining whether a law enforcement officer had “reasonable grounds” (i. e. “probable cause”) to act as he did, we should approach a resolution of the issues in the light of the historical interpretation this language of the Fourth Amendment has been accorded in the past. And, of course, we should look at the occurrence we are examining with the greater particularity when, as here, the officer, unprotected by a prior valid judicial act, invades a family’s permanent domicile in the night-time.
The latest of the several Supreme Court summaries setting forth the phi-losphy underlying the meaning of “upon probable cause” and an historical ex-*905amplification of that philosophy appears in Henry v. United States, supra. There Justice Douglas states, 361 U.S. 98, 101, 80 S.Ct. 168, 170:
“And as the early American decisions both before and immediately after its [the Fourth Amendment] adoption show, common rumor or report, suspicion, or even “strong reason to suspect” was not adequate to support a warrant for arrest. And that principle has survived to this day [citing cases]. Its high-water was Johnson v. United States, supra [1948, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436], where the smell of opium coming from a closed room was not enough to support an arrest and search without a warrant.”
There have been cases where the Supreme Court has gone to some lengths to find probable cause, but I find none where the Court has justified an arrest without an arrest warrant, or approved a search without a search warrant, where the evidence of probable cause was as flimsy and as unconvincing as it is in the instant ease.
The Carroll and Brinegar cases, supra, dealt with violations of the federal liquor laws. Defendants in each case were arrested on the open road while transporting liquor. In each case the arresting officer had observed the defendant at some length and could attest personally to the defendant’s having handled liquor. Defendants in Carroll had offered the officer alcohol on a previous occasion. Brinegar previously had been arrested by the same officer for illegally transporting liquor, and in the six months preceding the arrest at issue that officer had twice seen the defendant loading liquor into a car or truck.
Draper v. United States, supra, dealt with the specific section of the Narcotics' Control Act here involved. There the' arresting officer had information from a paid “special employee” of the Bureau of Narcotics that Draper was peddling narcotics and would arrive in Denver by train carrying a shipment of narcotics. Draper was arrested as he alighted from the train.
In Jones v. United States, supra, the question of whether the magistrate who issued a warrant had sufficient competent evidence before him in the officer’s affidavit to justify issuance was decided favorably to the Government. Probable cause was there found because the officer’s affidavit not only set forth information given by an unnamed informer but also stated that the officer personally knew the persons informed upon, and knew they were narcotics users. Furthermore, the informer had given reliable information in the past and the information given this time was corroborated by other informants. See 362 U.S. 267, footnote 2, 80 S.Ct. 734, footnote 2.
What evidence is offered in this case to justify a judicial finding that Agent Costa had “reasonable grounds” (i. e.r “probable cause”) to arrest DiBella without a warrant? Agent Costa had been: told of a statement by one Panzarella, a narcotics peddler, to a fellow-agent, Moy-nihan, a purchaser, that DiBella was Panzarella’s source of supply. The only evidence corroborating this hearsay was the fact that Costa had observed that prior to each of two sales DiBella and Panzarella had met in a car. Costa did not observe any transfer of anything between the two men. On the basis of this evidence Moynihan and Costa on October 6, 1958 applied for a warrant to search DiBella’s apartment. U. S. Commissioner Abruzzo denied the application. On October 15, 1958 a defective arrest warrant was issued. On March 9, 1959 Di-Bella was arrested by three agents in the evening as he was sitting in his living room. It is claimed that during this five months’ period the agents were awaiting expected additional violations, but Agent Costa could not point ta a single incident in that five months’ period which added to the evidence presented to Commissioner Abruzzo and from which Commissioner Abruzzo could not find probable cause to issue a search warrant.
*906Draper, Brinegar and Carroll were arrested when there was a real need for rapid action but even in those cases more evidence justifying arrest was introduced than here. In Brinegar and Carroll additional evidence was compiled during the period of surveillance. Here no such evidence was accumulated, and the informer Panzarella was something less than the trustworthy “special employee” in Draper. This case is perhaps closest to Jones, but even there more corroborating evidence was introduced, and the initial invasion of the privacy of the apartment where Jones was discovered was pursuant to a valid search warrant issued by “an independent judicial officer.”
It is interesting to compare the facts in the instant case with those in Henry v. United States, supra, in which the Supreme Court refused to find probable cause. In Henry the arrest followed surveillance by two FBI officers. Henry and a confederate had been seen making two trips transporting cartons in an automobile from a residential section of the city to a tavern. The FBI had developed an interest in Henry because the confederate had been “implicated in interstate shipments” and in that area there had been some whiskey stolen from an interstate shipment. Henry and his confederate were stopped during the second trip and were found to be carrying stolen radios in their car. The Supreme Court reasoned that using an auto to transport small cartons was an outwardly innocent activity, and the FBI agents could not rely in justification for their acts upon an informer’s story to them that Henry’s confederate was implicated in a former theft of an interstate shipment. DiBella’s two meetings with Pan-zarella were to all outward appearances a more innocent association than the two trips Henry and his confederate were making. No invasion of one’s domicile was involved in Henry, and the Court recognized that “Carroll v. United States, supra, liberalized the rule governing searches when a moving vehicle is involved.” But even under these circumstances the Court went on to say, “But that decision [Carroll] merely relaxed the requirements for a warrant on grounds of practicality. It did not dispense with the need for probable cause.” (Emphasis supplied.) 361 U.S. 98, 104, 80 S.Ct. 168, 172. Accord, Rios v. United States, 1960, 364 U.S. 253, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688. See Eng Fung Jem v. United States, 9 Cir., 1960, 281 F.2d 803. Moreover, in cases where arrests without warrant have been sought to be justified as having been made upon probable cause the Courts of Appeal have felt constrained to discover special circumstances to justify the arrests. See United States v. Kancso, 2 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 220, 224; United States v. Volkell, 2 Cir., 251 F.2d 333, 336, certiorari denied 1958, 356 U.S. 962, 78 S.Ct. 1000, 2 L.Ed.2d 1068; United States v. Walker, 7 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 519, 527. See also Williams v. United States, 9 Cir., 273 F.2d 781, 791, certiorari denied 1960, 362 U.S. 951, 80 S.Ct. 862, 4 L.Ed.2d 868 (informer was paid employee), relied on by the majority here.
The events which the majority hold gave rise to a reasonable belief that the appellant was guilty of a crime under the narcotics laws on March 9, 1959 occurred in August and September of 1958. This fact casts further doubt on the validity of the majority holding here that the officers had probable cause at 8:15 P.M. on March 9, 1959 to believe that DiBella had committed a narcotics crime recently enough, or was at that moment committing one, so as to justify the warrantless arrest. It is true enough that in cases where the officer has been armed with a valid arrest warrant the rule appears to be that the warrant need not be executed at the first opportunity. But, on the other hand, execution should not be unreasonably delayed. United States v. Joines, 3 Cir., 258 F.2d 471, certiorari denied 1958, 358 U.S. 880, 79 S.Ct. 118, 3 L.Ed.2d 109. The unreasonableness of a delay would depend upon the circumstances present in the particular situation, but thus far no case has been called to my attention, and I have *907not discovered any, where the courts have approved as reasonable an interval longer than a month between the issuance and the execution of the warrant where there has been opportunity in the meantime to make the arrest. See United States v. Joines, supra (21 days); Seymour v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 366, 177 F.2d 732 (6 days); State v. Kopelow, 1927, 126 Me. 384, 138 A. 625 (7 days); State v. Nadeau, 1903, 97 Me. 275, 54 A. 725 (23 days); Kent v. Miles, 1897, 69 Vt. 379, 37 A. 1115 (17 days). The permissible interval between the events giving rise to a narcotic agent’s reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed or is committing a narcotics crime and the agent’s actual arrest of such a person was considered by the Fifth Circuit in Dailey v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 870, 872, certiorari denied 1959, 359 U.S. 969, 79 S.Ct. 881, 3 L.Ed.2d 836 the court stating that the arresting officer “may defer the arrest for a day, a week, two weeks, or perhaps longer.” Surely in the present case where no new evidence was uncovered during the entire period of five months to justify the delayed arrest, we are faced with a very stale “probable cause”. I would hold that the arrest of a person who has been under surveillance for seven months — an arrest that is made by an officer not possessed of a valid arrest warrant but which the officer seeks to justify by events that occurred five months before — is not a lawful arrest. The majority find that the knowledge the officers possessed on October 6, 1958 makes the March 9, 1959 arrest lawful, and the subsequent search lawful. This is the identical knowledge that Commissioner Abruzzo on October 6, 1958 found insufficient to justify the issuance of a warrant to search those very premises at a time when the information was not stale.
However, assuming that the officers had probable cause to arrest DiBella the search of his home cannot even then be justified. The mere fact that a search immediately follows a valid arrest does not conclusively establish the reasonableness of that search. Abel v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 217, 235, 80 S.Ct. 683, 695, 4 L.Ed.2d 668; United States v. Rabinowitz, 1950, 339 U.S. 56, 65-66, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653. See Rios v. United States, supra, 364 U.S. at page 261, 80 S.Ct. at page 1436. A long and inconsistent series of cases has attempted to define the permissive area of a valid search incidental to an arrest. But as Justice Frankfurter pointed out this year in Abel:
“The several cases on this subject in this Court cannot be satisfactorily reconciled. This problem has, as is well-known, provoked strong and fluctuating differences of view on the Court. This is not the occasion to attempt to reconcile all the decisions, or to re-examine them. Compare Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231, with Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374, and United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 52 S.Ct. 420, 76 L.Ed. 877, compare Go-Bart, supra, and Lefkowitz, supra, with Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399, and United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653; compare also Harris, supra, with Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699, 68 S.Ct. 1229, 92 L.Ed. 1663, and Trupiano with Rabinowitz, supra (overruling Trupiano). Of these cases, Harris and Rabinowitz set by far the most permissive limits upon searches incidental to lawful arrests.” 362 U.S. at page 235, 80 S.Ct. at page 695.
Although Justice Frankfurter, in Abel, was unwilling to attempt a reconciliation of the cases, he had on two prior occasions analyzed in detail the decisions involving searches and seizures incidental to arrests. Harris v. United States, 1947, 331 U.S. 145, 155-183, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (dissent); United States v. Rabinowitz, supra, 339 U.S. at pages 68-86, 70 S.Ct. at pages 436-444 (dissent). From his analysis we can *908discern a pattern that has eroded the homeowner’s right to personal privacy in his dwelling to the point where it would seem that the entire home is subject to search by the police if armed with a valid warrant for the homeowner’s arrest. Harris v. United States, supra. Trupiano v. United States, supra, restricted Harris by pointing out that such a broad search without a search warrant could only be condoned as incidental to a lawful arrest where there was a practical necessity for speed. The need for this showing was later rejected in United States v. Rabinowitz, supra. Therefore, now, as a result of this steady erosion, on the authority of Harris, as resurrected by Rabinowitz, a prisoner’s apartment may be lawfully searched without a search warrant as incidental to his lawful arrest, unless the prisoner’s situation is meaningfully distinguishable from' that present in those cases.
Two factors distinguish the instant case. First, in Harris and Rabinowitz a valid warrant of arrest had been issued. Thus there had been a proper decision by a disinterested magistrate that probable cause of guilt existed. No valid warrant issued here. There is no Supreme Court case upholding the officers’ acts where a home was searched by officers armed with neither an arrest warrant nor a search warrant. Draper v. United States, supra, involved the search of a prisoner’s person; Brinegar and Carroll the search of the prisoners’ automobiles. It is certainly clear that “There is a vast difference between entering and searching homes or even hotel rooms which are fixed and more or less permanent locations and stopping a person or car on a highway for the same purpose. A warrant can usually be obtained in the first situation without too much risk that the object of the search will disappear.” United States v. Kancso, 2 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 220, 223, 224.
As Justice Douglas speaking for the Court has said:
“We are not dealing with formalities. The presence of a search warrant serves a high function. Absent some grave emergency, the Fourth Amendment has interposed a magistrate between the citizen and the police. This was done not to shield criminals nor to make the home a safe haven for illegal activities. It was done so that an objective mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy in order to enforce the law. The right of privacy was deemed too precious to entrust to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals. Power is a heady thing; and history shows that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted. And so the Constitution requires a magistrate to pass on the desires of the police before they violate the privacy of the home. We cannot be true to that constitutional requirement and excuse the absence of a search warrant without a showing by those who seek exemption from the constitutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.” McDonald v. United States, 1958, 335 U.S. 451, 455-456, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153.
Second, in further contrast to Harris and Rabinowitz, DiBellá’s arrest and the subsequent search of his residence occurred in the night-time. Rule 41(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C., provides that a search warrant shall be restricted to daytime execution unless the affidavit indicates positively that the objects to be seized are upon the premises. See also Distefano v. United States, 5 Cir., 1932, 58 F.2d 963. In Jones v. United States, 1958, 357 U.S. 493, 498-499, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 1257, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514, the Supreme Court stated, by Justice Harlan, that the provisions relative to night-time search in Rule 41 (c) are “hardly compatible with a principle that a search without a warrant can be based merely upon probable cause.” To be sure, the probable cause the Court was there discussing was probable cause for the existence of objects of seizure *909rather than probable cause to justify an arrest. But I see no difference in principle between the two situations.
Thus, it is clear that the majority is not merely applying the rationale of Harris and Rabinowitz, but is amplifying and extending the doctrine of those cases. Furthermore, the fact that the search uncovered narcotics cannot change the result, for “a search is not to be made legal by what it turns up. In law it is good or bad when it starts and does not change character from its success.” United States v. Di Re, 1948, 332 U.S. 581, 595, 68 S.Ct. 222, 229, 92 L.Ed. 210. Nor do I find persuasive the argument that such searches are necessary for the effective control of narcotics traffic. Justice Jackson, speaking for the Court, disposed of this argument in United States v. Di Re, supra, 332 U.S. at page 595, 68 S.Ct. at page 229:
“We meet in this case, as in many, the appeal to necessity. It is said that if such arrests and searches cannot be made, law enforcement will be more difficult and uncertain. But the forefathers, after consulting the lessons of history, designed our Constitution to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance, which they seemed to think was a greater danger to a free people than the escape of some criminals from punishment. Taking the law as it has been given to us, this arrest and search were beyond the lawful authority of those who executed them. The conviction based on evidence so obtained cannot stand.”
And as Justice Douglas said in his dissent in Draper v. United States, supra, 358 U.S. at pages 314-315, 79 S.Ct. at page 333:
“Decisions under the Fourth Amendment, taken in the long view, have not given the protection to the citizen which the letter and spirit of the Amendment would seem to require. One reason, I think, is that wherever a culprit is caught red-handed, as in leading Fourth Amendment cases, it is difficult to adopt and enforce a rule that would turn him loose. A rule protective of law-abiding citizens is not apt to flourish where its advocates are usually criminals. Yet the rule we fashion is for the innocent and guilty alike. If the word of the informer on which the present arrest was made is sufficient to make the arrest legal, his word would also protect the police who, acting on it, hauled the innocent citizen off to jail.”
Appellant DiBella was sitting in his living room one night when Agent Costa together with other agents entered and arrested him on the most specious of stale grounds. This arrest then became the basis of an exhaustive search of appellant’s home.1 To condone such activity “is to make the arrest an incident to an unwarranted search instead of a war-rantless search an incident to an arrest."” United States v. Rabinowitz, supra, 339 U.S. at page 80, 70 S.Ct. at page 441 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). To approve the officers’ acts here is to take another long step away from the original concepts of ordered liberty expressed in the Fourth Amendment. I would suppress the evidentiary material seized by the agents.

. There is no agreement as to the number of agents who participated in the arrest and search. But there were at least five. The government affidavit admits to five, and identifies these five by name. Two of them accompanied Costa at the time of the initial entry. Two more then joined these three when the search began. I suggest that this was more than enough manpower to make the simple arrest and that the agents’ real purpose in entering DiBella’s apartment was to conduct a search there without first applying for and obtaining a search warrant.