Court Opinion

ID: 9456631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:58:09.983373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:02.955384
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I think the search and seizure were valid on the authority of Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).
As the majority concedes the police had ample grounds to believe that the automobile in which the appellant was sitting was the one used in the robbery. It matched the description of the getaway car and bore the same stolen license plates. Furthermore, there was probable cause to arrest the driver, whose description tallied in detail with that of the robber. In these circumstances I think the officers had a right to search the car pursuant to the arrest of the driver, and without regard to the arrest of the appellant; and in the course of this search they had a right to seize and examine the coin purse, which was on the floor of the ear.
In my judgment it is immaterial that the purse was partially concealed by the appellant’s foot. The purse was on the floor of the ear, not on the appellant’s person; indeed he had deliberately and furtively removed it from his person.
It is conceded also that the purse might have contained a number of dimes and nickels — at least a part of the proceeds of the robbery. Again, it might have contained ammunition for the pistol used in the robbery. The police were therefore justified in opening the purse.
With all respect, it seems to me that to extend the protection of the Fourth Amendment by requiring a search warrant to open a coin purse, found on the floor of a getaway car in the circumstances of this case, is to stretch the Amendment beyond reasonable limits.
I would affirm the conviction.