Court Opinion

ID: 9684199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:50:26.875933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:54.013787
License: Public Domain

MOTION FOR REHEARING
On November 10, 1969, this Court issued an order granting petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Subsequently, respondent moved for a rehearing.
Each of the matters raised in respondent’s motion and brief were considered in ruling on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court was well aware that the facts in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967), are distinguishable from the facts of this case. However, the standards set forth in Terry and Warden are applicable to the facts in this case. The facts which respondent contends were sufficient to create probable cause to open the envelope were considered in the determination that probable cause did not exist.
Even if there were probable cause to believe that the envelopes contained narcotics, petitioner was under arrest and the envelopes were in the possession of the police officers. There was no danger that the contents of the envelopes would be used to effectuate an escape or that evidence would be destroyed. Under these circumstances, the *1333police officers should have secured a search warrant prior to opening the sealed envelopes. Colosimo v. Perini, 415 F.2d 804 (6th Cir. 1969), therefore,
It is hereby ordered that the motion for rehearing be, and the same hereby is denied.