Court Opinion

ID: 9476593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:00:08.083246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:24.359644
License: Public Domain

*959BALDOCK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority concludes that the seizure of the AR-15 rifle, which was located in a gun case approximately three feet from defendant at the time of his arrest, cannot be justified under the search incident to arrest or plain view exceptions to the fourth amendment warrant requirements. The majority also concludes that the presence of approximately 23 cans of gunpowder and a hand grenade did not constitute exigent circumstances which would allow a warrantless search of the room by the bomb squad. In reaching this latter conclusion, the majority finds, contrary to the trial judge who conducted the suppression hearing, that the claim of exigent circumstances by the officers was mere pretext. Because I cannot agree with the conclusions or the rationale set forth in the majority opinion, I must respectfully dissent.
In denying the motion to suppress, the district court noted that the “search ... was incident to [a] valid arrest and that the items seized were all in plain view of the officers who were lawfully on the premises.” Rec. vol. I, document 23 at 3. The district court went on to state that “[t]he second part of the search by the bomb squad was a valid search” due to the potentially hazardous situation created by the presence of the grenade and gunpowder. The majority rejects each of the district court’s conclusions.
The majority first addresses the seizure of the AR-15 rifle, rejecting both the search incident to arrest and plain view doctrines as justification for the warrant-less search and seizure. In addressing the search incident to arrest issue, the majority holds that the search is not excepted from the warrant requirements because the defendant was handcuffed at the time of the search. The majority thus concludes that the rifle was not in the area of the defendant’s immediate control at the time of arrest as required by Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).
Pursuant to Chimel, the permissible area which may be subject to a valid search incident to arrest is “the area from within which [the arrestee] might gam possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Id. The Supreme Court, in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), has defined this area within the immediate control of the arrestee as including the pockets of a jacket within the passenger compartment of an automobile in which the arrestee was an occupant, although the arrestee no longer has access to that passenger compartment. In Belton, the Court rejected the New York Court of Appeals’ conclusion that no valid search incident to arrest occurred where “there is no longer any danger that the arrestee or a confederate might gain access to the article.” Id. at 456, 101 S.Ct. at 2862. The Court concluded that, as a matter of law, the passenger compartment of the car was “in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within” the arrestee’s immediate control. Id. at 460, 101 S.Ct. at 2864. In allowing the search of a container (a jacket), the Court relied upon its earlier statement in Chimel that drawers within an arrestee’s reach could be searched, and stated that “the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have” in the container. Id. at 461, 101 S.Ct. at 2864.
Although Belton dealt specifically with the passenger compartment of an automobile, I believe that the principles set forth in that case are applicable here. In the present case, the gun case was located only three feet from defendant at the time of his arrest and at the time of the search and seizure. Although the fact that defendant was handcuffed immediately prior to the search indeed limits his access to the gun case, the case was still generally, if not inevitably, within his immediate control. As in Belton, the opening and subsequent search of the gun case is also justified as part of the search incident to arrest.
The majority also rejects the plain view doctrine as justification for the warrantless seizure of the AR-15 rifle. The majority concedes that “[t]he case containing the AR-15 rifle was in plain view, and the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the case gave probable cause to sus*960pect its contents.” The majority concludes, however, that the rifle itself was not in plain view, and its seizure thus violated the fourth amendment. I cannot agree.
As the majority notes, the Supreme Court in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 764-65 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 2593 n. 13, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), stated:
Not all containers and packages found by police during the course of a search will deserve the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, some containers (for example a kit of burglar tools or a gun case) by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy because their contents can be inferred from their outward appearance.
The majority refuses to apply this language to the present case, stating that Sanders did not specifically involve a gun case and drawing a distinction between the hard gun case involved in this case and a soft-sided gun case.
While the facts of Sanders did not involve a gun case, I believe that the reasoning employed by the Court in the footnote is sound and persuasive. Certainly, where the contents of a container are apparent from the very nature of the container itself, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy as to those contents. Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 427, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 2846, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981).1 Cf. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 120, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1660, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984). Furthermore, under the facts of this case, I am reluctant to draw a distinction between a hard, plastic gun case and a soft-sided gun case for the purpose of inferring the contents.
The trial judge did express some concern as to his ability to recognize the plastic case as a gun case. However, the search was conducted by experienced officers who had knowledge of defendant’s felony conviction and acquisition of firearms, and who observed the hard plastic case among several soft-sided gun cases. The experienced officers were able to recognize the plastic case as a gun case, and could thus reasonably infer its contents. Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. at 427, 101 S.Ct. at 2174. See also United States v. Walsh, 791 F.2d 811, 816-17 (10th Cir.1986) (trained BATF agents had probable cause to believe briefcase contained contraband); United States v. Rose, 695 F.2d 1356, 1358 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 836, 104 S.Ct. 123, 78 L.Ed.2d 121 (1983) (federal firearms agents recognized potentially incriminating evidence). As noted above, the majority admits that there was probable cause to suspect the contents of the plastic case. The trial court obviously found that the plastic case was sufficiently recognizable as a gun case to allow an inference as to its contents. I would therefore hold that the seizure of the AR-15 rifle was not unreasonable, and did not violate defendant’s fourth amendment rights.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the seizure of the M-16 bolt carrier assembly was valid.
*961The majority next reverses the district court’s holding that the warrantless search by the bomb squad resulting in the seizure of the sear kits was reasonable because of the presence of exigent circumstances. The majority thus overturns the district court’s finding of exigent circumstances due to the presence of 23 cans of gunpowder and a grenade in defendant’s ten by ten foot room.
In an effort to justify its reversal of the district court’s findings, the majority attempts to downplay the dangerous nature of the explosives located in defendant’s room. The majority points out that the witness who identified the powder as gunpowder testified that it was of the type legally and routinely seen in bullet reloading shops in quantities “up to maybe ten” cans. The majority, however, offers no basis from which to conclude that the quantities of gunpowder found in the reloading shops are not themselves potentially dangerous. Moreover, in the present case, the agents were faced with the presence of 23 cans. The quantity of gunpowder found in defendant’s room was thus more than twice that generally found in a professional reloading shop. Also, the gunpowder was in the immediate proximity of a grenade and several gun cases. The agents’ attempts to ascertain from defendant whether the grenade was live proved fruitless.
The majority minimizes the presence of what, until today, I would have considered an obvious danger by boldly stating that “[sjtanding undisturbed, cans of gunpowder are inert, ... and, even when live, a grenade is not dangerous unless disturbed.” In making these remarkable statements, the majority holds, as a matter of law, that standing quantities of gunpowder and grenades are not to be considered dangerous. It hardly seems necessary to say, but this approach is at odds with that taken by various courts in dealing with the dangerous propensities of both gunpowder and grenades. See, e.g., United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 609, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 1118, 28 L.Ed.2d 356 (1971) (“[grenades] are highly dangerous offensive weapons”); Stewart v. United States, 186 F.2d 627, 631 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 940, 71 S.Ct. 1000, 95 L.Ed. 1367 (1951) (“[t]hat [the grenades] were an explosive calculated to do great harm is not open to question”); Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Wilkins, 387 F.2d 48, 50 (5th Cir.1967) (“[t]he [Alabama Supreme] Court stated in the course of the opinion that gunpowder [naming others] is an inherently dangerous article”); 31 Am. Jur.2d Explosions and Explosives § 105 (1967) (“the court will take judicial notice of the dangerous qualities of certain substances, such as gunpowder, dynamite, or the like.” (footnotes omitted)). Due to the inherently dangerous propensities of both the gunpowder and grenade, I cannot accept the majority’s condescending conclusion that “the only immediate danger that existed was created by the officers themselves.”
More importantly, I am unwilling to overturn the district court’s factual determination as to the presence of exigencies and the actual motives of the agents. The majority makes the finding that the agents’ belief that exigent circumstances existed due to the presence of the explosives was “pure unadulterated pretext.” The majority goes on to find that the agents did not actually believe a potentially dangerous situation existed that would justify a warrant-less search, and any claim to the contrary by the agents was false. However, the district court which conducted the suppression hearing and heard the testimony of the officers involved obviously found that the agents did believe exigent circumstances were present. The district court had the unique opportunity to hear the testimony and judge the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. My review of the record confirms that there was indeed sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding of exigent circumstances, including the agents’ actual perception of those circumstances. I thus cannot join in the majority’s independent determinations, based solely upon its review of a cold record, as to the motive, intent, or credibility of the agents regarding their perception of the situation. I likewise cannot join in the majority’s reversal of the district court’s factual determinations.
As to the exigent circumstances issue, I would defer to the findings of the trial *962court, which are supported by evidence and logic, that the officers indeed perceived a dangerous situation. I disagree with the majority’s holding that, as a matter of law, 23 cans of gunpowder, a hand grenade, and various rifles cannot be considered a potentially dangerous situation so as to call in the bomb squad and conduct a warrantless safety search. I would thus affirm the trial court’s determination that the search by the bomb squad was justified due to the potentially hazardous situation with which they were presented. United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Newton, 788 F.2d 1392, 1394 (8th Cir.1986).
The two sear kits were discovered by the bomb specialists when they were searching for additional explosives. The sear kits were properly seized because they were recognized as parts used in converting a rifle into a machine gun. Because the sear kits were evidence of a crime and were found inadvertently during a valid search, they were properly seized. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).
I would affirm the district court’s decision that the AR-15 rifle, the bolt assembly, and the sear kits should not be suppressed.

. The Court in Robbins held that containers found in the course of a lawful search of an automobile could not be opened without a warrant. In reaching its conclusion, the Court interpreted footnote 13 in Sanders (quoted above) as standing for the proposition that "if the distinctive configuration of a container proclaims its contents, the contents cannot fairly be said to have been removed from a searching officer’s view.” Robbins, 453 U.S. at 427, 101 S.Ct. at 2846. The Court relied on the implication from the Sanders footnote that "unless the container is such that its contents may be said to be in plain view, those contents are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment." Id.
The precise holding of Robbins, as well as the portions of Sanders relied on therein, were overruled in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). The Court in Ross concluded that, once officers have probable cause to believe an automobile is carrying contraband, such probable cause justifies the search of every part of the automobile and its contents, including containers, that may conceal the object of the search. Id. at 825, 102 S.Ct. at 2173. Thus, Ross employs a test as to when containers in an automobile may be searched that no longer relies upon a finding that the nature of the container reveals its contents. Ross does not, however, alter the rationale set forth in Sanders and Robbins that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a container where the nature of the container discloses those contents to the officers.