Court Opinion

ID: 9465225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:39:40.349809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:02.865337
License: Public Domain

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from part III of the opinion, which attempts to justify as a valid border search the seizure of two trucks and their cargo in a motel parking area in Atlanta.
The border was the dock in Savannah. Government agents knew that contraband had entered the country by boat at that border. They observed the contraband being off-loaded and re-loaded into four trucks, two of which were surveilled to Atlanta. There, 254 miles and two motels from the border, 20 hours after the contraband crossed the border, and in the absence of exigent circumstances, the agents seized the trucks. This was no search. The agents, thinking they had been identified as law enforcement officers, moved in to take possession of the vehicles and of the contents they had known was carried in them since they watched them loaded at dockside.
The border search doctrine permits warrantless searches made under standards less strict than the probable cause usually required by the Fourth Amendment. The rationale for this exception to the Fourth Amendment is national self protection against the bringing of contraband into the country. In Carroll v. U. S., 267 U.S. 132 at 154, 45 S.Ct. 280, 285, 69 L.Ed. 543 at 551-52 (1924), the Supreme Court said:
Travelers may be so stopped in crossing an international boundary, because of national self-protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in. But those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise.
*351In cases both timely and familiar the Court has continued to recognize the concept of our national interest in protection against contraband’s being brought across our borders. In Almeida-Sanchez v. U. S., 413 U.S. 266 at 274, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2540, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 at 603 (1973), the Court said:
The Court that decided Carroll v. United States, supra, sat during a period in our history when the Nation was confronted with a law enforcement problem of no small magnitude — the enforcement of the Prohibition laws. But that Court resisted the pressure of official expedience against the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Chief Justice Taft’s opinion for the Court distinguished between searches at the border and in the interior, .
In his concurring opinion in U. S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 at 887, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2583, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 at 620 (1975), Justice Rehnquist discussed Carroll in terms of the right to stop and search “travelers entering the country.”
From Savannah to Atlanta, from border entry to seizure, the sole interest pursued was effective police work through which agents hoped to find the destination and the consignees of the contraband they had observed come across our border. I am as much in favor of good police work as my brothers. But the rationale which supports the relaxed standards for searches at the border was, in this ease, wholly vindicated at the border where the material was unloaded from the ship that had entered the United States and re-loaded into trucks for land carriage. Agents saw the material and could have seized it but elected not to. From that time on the agents were not seeking contraband or persons bringing in contraband but persons within the United States with whom the smugglers were dealing. So far as I can determine the Supreme Court has never held that the desire to catch consignees, higher-ups and co-conspirators somewhere within the confines of the interior of the United States permits customs agents to carry border search authority around with them like a suitcase to whatever point at which they choose to make a seizure of goods that have been brought in illegally. The attenuated justification asserted in this case is an example of the “pressure of official expedience against the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment” to which Justice Stewart referred to in Almeida-Sanchez.
The majority opinion relies heavily on U. S. v. Martinez, 481 F.2d 214 (C.A.5, 1973), reh. den. 481 F.2d 1404 (C.A.5, 1973), cert, denied, 415 U.S. 931, 94 S.Ct. 1444, 39 L.Ed.2d 489 (1974). There, government agents had a tip that a described truck would cross the border carrying marijuana. A truck meeting the description was observed crossing the border but was not inspected at that time. Thus the border-related national interests referred to in Carroll were not vindicated at the border. It was never known whether the truck in fact contained contraband until it was searched several days later at San Antonio. Similarly in U. S. v. Reagor, 441 F.2d 252 (C.A.5, 1971), the search was conducted 60 miles from the border at a time when agents did not know whether there was contraband present.
In U. S. v. Cristancho-Puerto, 475 F.2d 1025 (C.A.5), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 869, 94 S.Ct. 181, 38 L.Ed.2d 115 (1973) there were repeated searches at the border. Immigration officials at Miami, suspicious of defendant’s travel documents, took him into custody and searched him, without discovery of contraband, and stored his baggage. The next day he was arrested on a charge of fraudulent entry documents. Three days later he was fruitlessly searched again. After three additional days, on a tip that he had cocaine in his possession, he was searched the third time and cocaine found in his shoes. Agents then conducted their fourth search, of his stored luggage, and found more cocaine. We held searches three and four valid but on the narrow ground that defendant had never been “admitted” to the United States but with respect to his legal status was like a person “standing at the border.” We relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) which permits the Attorney General to temporarily parole into the *352United States an alien applying for admission and such parole is not regarded as an admission into the United States. We held:
On the precise facts of this case, we find this statute to be dispositive. We are not dealing here with an alien who has been placed in deferred inspection parole status and then allowed to remain either at liberty or at large. Rather, we hold only that an alien who is brought into the country under the provisions of this law and who is being held in physical custody by entry officials, having never for a moment been allowed to move about free of custody, continues to stand at the border for customs and border search purposes. Nor do we suggest that his special legal status could be continued indefinitely. If the entry officials allow the alien to remain at large pending investigation under the statute, the alien would not remain at the door.
* * * * * sf:
Finally, we do not mean to imply that there could never be a period of time for which an alien is held under the statute that would be too long to be reasonable. Here, appellant was searched one week after his physical entry into the country. Because the search occurred only one week later, at a time when the alien had been held in continuous physical custody by entry officials, pending prosecution and pursuant to section 1182(d)(5), we hold that the search was a border search.
475 F.2d at 1028.
We have rejected the argument that once a vehicle has been examined at the border a subsequent search may be based upon probable cause and may not be based upon facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion which come to light after the initial border search, but under circumstances where the second search was independently justifiable as a border search. Morales v. U. S., 378 F.2d 187 (C.A.5, 1967) (cursory search of car at bridge, after intervening suspicious circumstances car seized near bridge, taken to station at border and thoroughly searched). In U. S. v. Maggard, 451 F.2d 502 (C.A.5, 1971), the car was given a cursory search at a checkpoint eight miles north of the border. The suspicions of agents were aroused when the car drove away from the checkpoint because the rear was riding low. They followed the car and searched it two miles and a few minutes away. The defendant was not immune on the basis that he had cleared the first customs search.
Time and distance are important in analyzing the validity of an alleged border search conducted away from the border. But an even more significant factor is whether the interests which justify border search have been fully vindicated at the border. Once these interests have been met, they should not be reasserted to justify an otherwise illegal seizure far inland.
MEHRTENS, District Judge, dissenting as to Part II.
I respectfully dissent from the court’s opinion in Part II holding that the seizure and search of Thompson’s truck in the motel parking lot were violative of his Fourth Amendment rights.
I also disagree with the majority’s holding that Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), is limited only to highway stops. Although the car in Chambers was stopped on the highway, it was then driven to a police station where the search took place.
The majority opinion in Part II overlooks the unassailable logic espoused in Chambers where the Supreme Court stated:
“For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant. Given probable cause to search, either course is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
“ . . . The probable-cause factor still obtained at the station house and so did the mobility of the car unless the Fourth Amendment permits a warrant-less seizure of the car and the denial of its use to anyone until a warrant is se*353cured. In that event there is little to choose in terms of practical consequences between an immediate search without a warrant and the car’s immobilization until a warrant is obtained.” 399 U.S. at 52, 90 S.Ct. at 1981.
The Supreme Court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), although holding the search of the car at the police station invalid because of the lack of probable cause, emphasized:
“The measure of legality of such a seizure is, therefore, that the seizing officer shall have reasonable or probable cause for believing that the automobile which he stops and seizes has contraband . therein which is being illegally transported.”
No point was made of the fact that the automobile had been towed to the police station and that “there was no way in which he could conceivably have gained access to the automobile after the police arrived on his property.” 403 U.S. at 460, 91 S.Ct. at 2035. The court emphasized that “surely there is nothing in this case to invoke the meaning and purpose of the rule of Carroll v. United States [267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 546] ... No contraband or stolen goods or weapons, no confederates waiting to move the evidence.” 403 U.S. at 462, 91 S.Ct. at 2035. In contrast, here there was contraband, approximately 3,000 pounds of marihuana. The majority has failed to respect the distinction between the holding in Coolidge with respect to non-contraband goods and the holding in Carroll that “contraband goods concealed and transported in an automobile or other vehicle may be searched and without a warrant.” 267 U.S. at 153, 45 S.Ct. at 285. The marihuana constituted contraband within the statutory definition, 26 U.S.C. §§ 4741(a), 4744(a)(2), 7302; 49 U.S.C. §§ 781, 787(d).
In Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 96 S.Ct. 304, 46 L.Ed.2d 209 (1975), defendant was arrested at a bank drive-in window. The officers directed him to park his car at the curb. He was arrested and one officer drove him to the station house while the other drove his car there. After questioning defendant, the officers then searched his automobile and discovered incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court, finding that there was probable cause both for the arrest and for the search of the vehicle, either at the scene or at the station house, stated:
“In Chambers v. Maroney we held that police officers with probable cause to search an automobile on the scene where it was stopped could constitutionally do so later at the station house without first obtaining a warrant. There, as here ‘[t]he probable-cause factor’ that developed on the scene ‘still obtained at the station house’. 399 U.S., at 52, [90 S.Ct. 1975] . . ..”
Here, as in Chambers and in Texas where the cars were searched at the police station, there was no way in which the defendant or an accomplice could conceivably have gained access to it after he was arrested. The fact that Thompson’s car was seized in the motel parking lot has no legal significance. The same arguments of exigency, immobilization on the spot and posting a guard were present, and its contents constituted contraband. The approach also minimizes the reality of the circumstances. The agents were eyewitnesses to the unloading of the bundles from the “ODESSA” into the trucks which were kept under constant surveillance. The circumstances make especially appropriate the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Carroll, supra, “The measure of legality of such a seizure is therefore that the seizing officer shall have reasonable or probable cause for believing that the automobile which he stops and seizes has contraband . . . therein which is being illegally transported.”
Thompson contends that probable cause to search the truck existed for several hours prior to his arrest and that, therefore, there were no exigent circumstances. I know of no case or principle that suggests that the right to search on probable cause and the reasonableness of seizing an automobile under exigent circumstances are foreclosed if a warrant was not obtained at the first *354practicable moment. The exigency may arise at any time, and the fact that the police might have obtained a warrant earlier does not negate the possibility of a current situation’s necessitating prompt police action. In the case sub judice the officers had probable cause to believe that Thompson’s truck had been used to transport marihuana from the “ODESSA” docked in Savannah to the Motel One in Atlanta. A substantial quantity of marihuana was seen by the informant on the “ODESSA” and he assisted the other defendants in loading it into the four trucks. In fact, one of the trucks belonged to the informant. The agents did not intend to search the trucks at the motel in Atlanta but planned to continue their surveillance to the point of delivery. Only when it became apparent that the defendants knew of the surveillance were the arrest and seizure effected. The truck and its contents were seized immediately after the arrest of the Thompsons.
This Court in United States v. Soriano, 497 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1974), citing Chambers v. Maroney, supra, stated that:
“Chambers teaches that where automobiles are concerned, circumstances which justify an immediate seizure as reasonable justify an immediate search as well. Id. at 149.”
The majority correctly approves warrant-less searches of vehicles in motion when seized. On the other hand, warrantless probable-cause searches of vehicles parked in a public place, but movable in some circumstances, are invalid without proof of exigent circumstances or a search warrant. It would seem from the holding that when law enforcement officers discover a vehicle parked in a public place that they have probable cause to seize and search, they must not immediately do so but must first seek a warrant. If, however, before the warrant arrives, the car is put in motion by someone, it may be searched on the spot or elsewhere. In the case before us Thompson’s truck parked in the motel parking lot could not be searched without a valid warrant, although if Thompson had been arrested as he started to drive away from the motel, immediate seizure and search of the truck would have been reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
I am unable to find anything in the language or underlying rationale of the cases from Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 546, to Chambers v. Maroney, supra, limiting vehicle searches as the court now limits them in situations such as the one before us. Although each of those cases may have involved vehicles or vessels in motion prior to their being stopped and searched, each of them approved the search of a vehicle that was no longer moving and with the occupants in custody no more likely to move than the unattended but movable truck parked in the motel lot.
For Fourth Amendment purposes, the difference between a moving vehicle that has been stopped on the highway and a movable truck parked in a public parking lot is tenuous at best. In my opinion, it is a metaphysical distinction without roots in the common sense standard of reasonableness governing vehicle search and seizure cases.
Accordingly, I would hold that the seizure and search of Thompson’s truck were not under the facts unreasonable or violative of his Fourth Amendment rights.
In addition, even assuming that a warrant was technically required, I am of the opinion that the marihuana seized should not be excluded from evidence. The so-called exclusionary rule is “a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights, generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). Therefore, as with any remedial device, the rule should only be applied in cases where the primary objective, judicial integrity, or deterrence of police misconduct is most efficaciously served. United States v. Calandra, supra.
The defendant is entitled only to a fair trial, not a perfect one. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 446, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 *355L.Ed.2d 182 (1976). It would be most unrealistic to expect law enforcement officers, subjected to pressures and unexpected actions, to make no errors whatsoever. It would seem imperative, therefore, before police error is penalized, that it be considered whether the sanction is fair to the law enforcement officer, the general public, the aggrieved person and to the need for an effective determination of the truth at trial. In this case the officers were acting in good faith when they arrested the defendant, seized the truck which they knew contained marihuana, and searched it. There was no willful or negligent conduct by them which deprived the defendant of some right. The majority’s finding of an illegal search and seizure, for all practical effects, frees the guilty defendant. The disparity in this ease between the asserted error committed by the police and the windfall afforded the guilty defendant by application of the rule is contrary to the concept of proportionality essential to the concept of justice, creating public disrespect for the law and the administration of justice. The policies underlying the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule are neither absolute nor all-encompassing. Weighing these policies against an equally compelling policy, the necessity for an effective determination of truth at trial, I would not exclude from evidence the 1,500 pounds of marihuana found in the defendant’s truck. By doing so the truthfinding process is deflected and the guilty may go free.
The dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Burger in the 5-4 decision of Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977) emphasizes the importance of applying “the exclusionary rule on the basis of its benefits and costs, at least in those cases where the police conduct at issue is far from being outrageous or egregious,” 430 U.S. at 427, 97 S.Ct. at 1254.
So serious an infringement with the crucial truth-seeking function of a criminal prosecution should be allowed only when imperative to safeguard constitutional rights. See Id at 425-26, 97 S.Ct. 1232.
Thus, the lack of “egregious injury to the defendant Thompson’s constitutional rights is an added ground for not excluding the marihuana seized from his truck with probable cause. To do so would suppress the truth when the threat to justice is slim.
I am of the opinion that on reason and authority the true rule is that if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon probable cause, that is, upon a belief reasonably arising out of the circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, the search and seizure are valid. The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interest as well as the interest and rights of individual citizens. Carroll v. United States, supra; United States v. James, 432 F.2d 303 (5th Cir. 1970), cert denied, 403 U.S. 906, 91 S.Ct. 2214, 29 L.Ed.2d 682.