Court Opinion

ID: 9752150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:39:22.836135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:08.442359
License: Public Domain

NEBEKER, Associate Judge
(concurring) :
I agree with the reasoning of Judge Kern’s opinion. However, I do not find it necessary to reach a safety justification rationale since on the facts it is clear that the police had a superior right temporarily to relocate the vehicle, thereby having a right to enter it independent of any question of reasonableness in apprehending danger.
My inquiry begins and, for practical purposes, ends with the question whether police may take custody of a vehicle1 when arresting its sole occupant in the early morning hours as he drives it on a public street. I conclude the police may do so. Appellant having been arrested and secured for transportation to the police station, “the officer would have been derelict in his duty if he had left the car unattended” on a public street “in the middle of the night.” Cotton v. United States, 371 F.2d 385, 392 (9th Cir. 1967). Hence, at the time the officer placed his head and shoulders into the automobile, it was subject to the custody of the police to the extent that the officer could have lawfully entered it to drive it. Given that superior right, the police could have and necessarily and inevitably would have discovered the weapon. Cf. Killough v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 10, 15, 336 F.2d 929, 934 (1964) and Wayne v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 238, 318 F.2d 205, 209 (1963) (“Inevitable Discovery” Exception to Exclusionary Rule).
The fact that the police decided to permit appellant’s friend to take the vehicle does not dilute or dissipate the prior and superior right of the police to custody of the car to avoid leaving it on the street. Possessed, as the police were, of this right to enter the vehicle to relocate it, appellant cannot object to the lesser intrusion by the officer merely putting his head and shoulders into the vehicle. Once the officer’s head and shoulders were properly and lawfully inside the automobile (albeit for a different purpose2), objects falling within his plain view were not the result of a search and were subject to seizure. Harris *38v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968). See also South Dakota v. Opperman, — U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3096, 3099, 48 L.Ed.2d -, 44 U.S.L.W. 5294, 5295, and 5297 (1976).

. The vehicle did not belong to the accused. This fact was probably known to the police at the time, but it was not until trial that mention of ownership by someone else was revealed of record.

. In Fourth Amendment cases, police conduct may be justified on any legal basis regardless of whether the police considered that basis at the time. Arrington v. United States, D.C.App., 311 A.2d 838, 840 (1973); Payne v. United States, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 94, 96, 294 F.2d 723, 725 (1961).