Court Opinion

ID: 9464117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:25:25.625444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:27.974467
License: Public Domain

WEICK, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
This is a strong case for the application of the harmless error rule enunciated in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The robber here was positively identified by the victim, who had full opportunity to observe him during the commission of the robbery of the drugstore. The victim was able also to observe and identify the robber’s automobile and its license number as the robber was driving away from the store. The victim immediately called the police, who drove to the hotel where the robber had been living. As the officers approached the hotel the robber, who had observed their approach, drove away at high speed, but the police were able to apprehend him. A search of the robber’s car incident to the arrest revealed a part of the money and other items which were stolen from the store. No question has been raised as to the validity of this search of the car. Appellant is questioning the validity of the search of room 131 in the hotel.
The robber’s conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in an appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate. Bradley v. Commonwealth, 439 S.W.2d 61 (Ky.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 974, 90 S.Ct. 1091, 25 L.Ed.2d 268 (1970). The facts are set forth in the opinion of the court, which concluded, in part:
We think in this case, however, that if Bradley gave the officers permission to search his room, as they said he did, the permission extended to room 131, which was in fact his room even though he sought to deceive the officers by leading them to another room.
It would appear, therefore, that not only was Bradley “afforded an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his claim in the state courts,” but also he exercised that opportunity. He is therefore precluded from resorting to habeas relief in the federal courts under the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976).
Prior to the decision in Stone v. Powell, supra, however, we had remanded Bradley’s habeas case to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing. Bradley v. Cowan, 500 F.2d 380 (6th Cir. 1974). It was Bradley’s contention that he had consented only to the search of room 146 in the hotel and not to room 131, where the gun and additional items involved in the robbery were found. As to this search District Judge Gordon made the following findings and conclusions:
The search which resulted in finding the gun and some of the money from the robbery involves two rooms in the Marquette Hotel — room 146 and room 131. Petitioner, shortly after the arrest, and after advice as to his rights (T.P. 86), told the officers that he stayed in room 146 with another person. (T.P. 22-23). (T.E. 88). He was actually registered in room 131 under an alias. (T.E. 99). He did not tell this to the officers. (T.E. 89). (T.E. 22-24). He said he could not give consent to search room 146, although the police officers testified he gave consent. This conflict is not important. The officers and petitioner entered the room, and nothing had been found when another officer entered the room with the information that room 131 was the one registered to petitioner, and the one in which he was staying. They all proceeded to room 131. A police officer testified that he asked petitioner four times if room 131 *1219was his, and received a denial as to that or any room other than 146 each time, before the manager unlocked the door and they entered and searched the room. (T.P. 89). Petitioner denies that he was so asked and, of course, no one testified that he consented to a search of room 131. (T.P. 24). It is significant to note while resolving this conflict that petitioner never testified at trial, or here, that he at any time corrected his earlier statement that he resided in that hotel in room 146, impliedly to the exclusion of any other room, and never once has he testified that he made known to the officers that he resided, either instead or also, in room 131; a fortiori, he does not claim that the room was searched in the face of his refusal to consent. This misinformation as to where he resided, coupled with his silence when he had the opportunity to correct the false impression earlier conveyed, constituted a waiver of any claim of a possessory interest in room 131. We hold this even if we accept as true the petitioner’s version that he was not specifically asked by an officer if he resided in room 131. On the contrary, however, petitioner’s failure in either proceedings to testify that he acknowledged occupancy of 131 lends credence to the officer’s testimony that the former affirmatively denied such occupancy. In either event, however, petitioner’s actions amounted to a disclaimer, and the intrusion into the room, consented to by the manager, did not violate petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights. Hayes v. Cady, 500 F.2d 1212 (7th Cir. 1974).
In my opinion these factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. The conclusion of law is also correct.
I agree that the police had probable cause to obtain a search warrant to search room 131, but in my opinion it was not necessary for them to obtain such warrant because Bradley had advised the police four times that room 131 was not his room. This amounted to a disclaimer, and the police “were entitled to take petitioner at his word ..” Hayes v. Cady, 500 F.2d 1212, 1214 (7th Cir. en banc 1974).