Court Opinion

ID: 9460064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:39:56.598414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:27.542771
License: Public Domain

TRASK, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion the F.B.I. agents acted unreasonably in stopping appellant’s car for the purpose of interrogating him. The stop violated appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonably infringed on appellant’s right as a motorist to be free from arbitrary disruption of unrestricted lawful travel. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
There can be no question that appellant’s motion to suppress was directed at all evidence obtained by the government as a result of the stop — identification documents, fingerprints, handwriting exemplars and testimony of what appellant said and did during the stop. The majority opinion ignores the legality of the stop issue determining that appellant’s primary argument is without merit — that the evidence should have been suppressed because a Miranda warning was not given soon enough. I am also unpersuaded by appellant’s interpretation of Miranda and the warning requirement under the circumstances of this case. This court should not bypass a consideration of the legality of the stop, however, merely because appellant has raised that issue with less vigor. If the stop was illegal, then the evidence obtained as a result of the stop should have been suppressed.1
The stop of a vehicle can be an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it intrudes on a driver’s reasonable expectation of the right to proceed lawfully along the public streets and highways *165without molestation by authorities except for cause. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 94-95, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). And that cause may be no less than a founded suspicion. United States v. Mallides, 473 F.2d 859 (9th Cir., 1973). When federal agents pull a motorist off the road by use of a siren there has been a seizure even though the agents only intended to make a routine investigation. The question must be raised in every stop case whether the seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In determining the reasonableness of such a stop, the courts must weigh the need for police action against the inconvenience and intrusion which the stop entails. Terry v. Ohio, supra; United States v. Leal, 460 F.2d 385 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 889, 93 S.Ct. 154, 34 L.Ed.2d 146 (1972).
With these general principles in mind, a review of the facts of this case is crucial in assessing the reasonableness of the challenged stop. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that:
(1) F.B.I. agents knew where appellant lived and had known for a number of jnonths prior to April 4, 1972.
(2) The agents knew appellant’s car by make, model, color, year and license number. .
(3) The agents presumably knew appellant had worked as a typist for a practicing lawyer, but no effort was made to contact the appellant at that office or through the attorney.
(4) The agents knew that appellant was using the name Gerald Clayton Washburn and had known for a number of months. Appellee acknowledges that it is not a crime in itself to assume a false identity.
(5) The agents knew that appellant had a Washington driver’s license in the name of Gerald Clayton Washburn and had seen a copy of the driver’s license in the state’s records prior to April 4, 1972. (Washington driver’s licenses have the driver’s picture on them.) The agents were also aware that there were birth records in Seattle of a Gerald Clayton Washburn who had died as a child several years prior to April 4, 1972.
(6) Prior to April 4, 1972, the agents surveilled Ward on different occasions at his residence and wanted to interview him regarding a federal fugitive, William Ayres', who had been indicted in 1970 by a federal Grand Jury, but not in the presence of appellant’s friends or acquaintances.
(7) On April 4, 1972, agents Woodlieg and Clark were driving around Capitol Hill with two other agents who were new to Seattle. The agents went by appellant's residence where appellant was spotted in his Volkswagen. The agents followed appellant to a co-op and then followed him after he left the co-op, catching up with him at a nearby intersection at a stop sign. The agents then turned on the siren in their unmarked car. Appellant turned around to look at them and they motioned him to go around the corner and stop. Appellant turned the corner and pulled over to the side of the road into a parking place. The agents stopped in the street behind appellant’s Volkswagen but about five feet from the curb.
(8) All four F.B.I. agents exited the car and approached appellant. Agent Woodlieg testified that he and the other agents identified themselves, informed appellant that they wanted to interview him about federal fugitives and asked appellant to identify himself, already knowing that appellant was using the name Washburn and had a driver’s license in the name Washburn. Appellant produced the driver’s license and agent Woodlieg informed appellant that Washburn did not exist and that he could not be Washburn. Appellant, in response to this, shrugged his shoulders and then handed a stack of identification papers to Woodlieg as if to say, “What do you mean, of course I’m Washburn, see.” Agent Woodlieg saw the top *166identification which was a Selective Service Registration Certificate in the name of Washburn.
(9) Upon seeing the Selective Service card, Woodlieg advised appellant that he was under arrest, advised him of his rights and proceeded to frisk him. (10) Agent Woodlieg testified that prior to seeing the Selective Service card, he had nothing on which to arrest or detain Ward and no facts on which to suspect any law violation. Agent Woodlieg also testified that they did not know or suspect that appellant had the false Selective Service card. The agents justified the stop of appellant’s vehicle on the ground that they were carrying out their “traditional investigatory function,” explaining that they wanted to interview appellant in secret.
With all due deference to the federal agents’ duties to make criminal investigations, I am unable to justify the manner they chose for approaching the appellant. First, there were no exigent circumstances to justify the stop as when the police have a founded suspicion that fresh criminal activity is afoot. Here there was no emergency situation.There was no need for immediate action. The agents were not fearful appellant would leave town. The stop was not directed at a particular crime, but was part of a general investigation that had been started months before. The agents had never sought an interview with appellant at his house or place of business although that could have been arranged. Instead they chose to contact appellant for an interview by tailing his car and pulling him over to a stop by a siren on the public street.
Second, the stop was not made by local law enforcement officers as guardians of the peace, but by federal agents with the duty to enforce specific federal statutes only. See Frye v. United States, 315 F.2d 491, 494 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 849, 84 S.Ct. 104, 11 L. Ed.2d 76 (1963).
Third, and most important of all, the stop was not made because of something appellant had done, or was suspected of having done. Rather, the stop was made for the purpose of questioning appellant about a third person.2 Investigative stops based on a person’s suspicious activities are constitutionally permissible. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Vehicular stops based on the driver's furtive actions may be unlawful, however, if the police officers did not have reasonable grounds for making the stop. United States v. Majourau, 474 F.2d 766 (9th Cir., 1973); United States v. Davis, 459 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Nicholas, 448 F.2d 622 (8th Cir. 1971). The stop of appellant was not a Terry “investigative stop,” since appellant had done nothing to direct the agents’ suspicion at him.3
Considering these differences, I conclude the stop of appellant must be distinguished from the general “investigative stop” approved in Terry and in decisions by this court. Wilson v. Porter, 361 F.2d 412, 415 (9th Cir. 1966). The stop in this case unreasonably interfered with appellant’s right as a motorist to
*167travel without interference. The Supreme Court has noted in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949):
“The citizen who has given no good cause for believing he is engaged in [unlawful] activity is entitled to proceed on his way without interference.” 338 U.S. at 177, 69 S.Ct. at 1311. See also Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).
This right to proceed without interference was violated in Clay v. United States, 239 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1956), when a known gambler was forced off the road by federal Revenue Agents. As in this case, the agents stopped the vehicle to question the driver although there was no reason to believe that a crime was being committed. The agents knew where appellant lived and where he worked and they had kept him under surveillance for a number of days prior to the time they forced his automobile off the public highway. The court concluded that evidence seized as a result of the unlawful stop should have been suppressed.
The mere desire of F.B.I. agents to talk to an individual about another individual is insufficient reason for forcibly stopping a citizen’s vehicle on the highway when measured against the embarrassment and indignity incident to a stop on a city street by means of a siren by four agents. It is idle for the appel-lee to argue that because appellant was not under formal arrest he “voluntarily” produced the incriminating document. He was being forcibly detained under the heavy hand of the law and he knew it and they knew it. Under the circumstances of this case, I am compelled to believe the stop was an unreasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment. The materials discovered as a result of the stop should have been suppressed because they were the fruit of the unlawful stop. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). In my judgment, appellant’s conviction should be reversed.
Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL, KOELSCH, BROWNING, DUNIWAY, ELY, HUFSTEDLER, WRIGHT, TRASK, CHOY, GOODWIN, and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.

. The Motion to Suppress and the Memorandum and Supplementary Memorandum of Points and Authorities clearly show appellant’s reliance upon the illegality of the stop as well as the failure to give proper Miranda warnings. He claimed the protection of the Fourth Amendment and of the Fifth Amendment.

. “No, I had no intentions of arresting Mr. Ward. The sole purpose of my stopping him was for an interview, and that was all .... In relation to fugitive matters . . . concerning William Charles Ayres.” (Testimony of Agent Woodlieg, R.T. at 10).

. “ . . . [T]he agents had no charge on which to suspect any law violation prior to seeing the Selective Service card; . . . ” Government Brief at 13.
“Here, the agents had no knowledge of a crime having been committed and they did not observe anything which would lead them to suspect a crime had been committed by Ward, prior to seeing the Selective Service card.” Government Brief at 14-15.
“The stop in this case was not a Terry “investigative stop” since the agents did not suspect that a crime had been or was being committed by appellant, Ward.” Government Brief at 21.