Court Opinion

ID: 9700420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:27:15.275351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:08.454843
License: Public Domain

KERN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the decision of the court that the handbag and its contents seized from appellant Bailey after her arrest should not have been suppressed. It was reasonable, as a routine security precaution, for the arresting officer to have examined the woman’s handbag, a usual female ac-couterment, at the feet of the arrestee before transporting her to headquarters. See United States v. Dyson, D.C.App., 277 A.2d 658 (decided May 28, 1971).1 When he opened the purse and discovered a wallet containing papers in a name other than appellant’s I do not believe his subsequent close examination of it transcended the bounds of reasonableness. Under these circumstances I would affirm.

. Commendably enough the officer eschewed a search of the suitcase next to appellant Bailey as well as the closet in the 10 foot by 12 foot room where the arrest took place. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).