Court Opinion

ID: 9465427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:46:07.161503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:10.537023
License: Public Domain

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Scios, a private investigator who was known to the FBI to be a “wiretapper and bugger,” resided in Staten Island, New York. He was hired by the owners of “Your Pharmacy, Inc.” located in the District of Columbia, to discover the source of some losses the drugstore was suffering. Some time later he was arrested in New York on a warrant issued in the District of Columbia for alleged wire tapping in connection with the “Pharmacy” investigation. At the time of the arrest the possibility of obtaining a search warrant was discussed between the FBI agents and the U.S. Attorney in New York, but they decided that they were not possessed of sufficient facts to justify the issuance of such warrant.
When Scios was eventually arrested in his home, in a small office to which, at his suggestion, he led the agents (Tr. Ill, 12-13, 45-46),* a file entitled “Your Pharmacy Service” was seized which contained incriminating evidence. One document obtained from this file was used by the FBI to track down a material witness, one Massa, who apparently is able to inculpate Scios in the crimes with which he is charged. However, the trial court granted Scios’ motion to suppress the testimony of said Massa on the ground that his testimony was directly attributable to the information contained in the file folder which the court found to have been obtained by the arresting agents as the result of an unlawful seizure. The Government by this appeal seeks to reverse the suppression order on the ground that the “taint” on the testimony of Massa has been sufficiently attenuated to avoid its rejection on the ground that it was the fruit of an unlawful seizure, see Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). In my view, we need not reach the attenuation argument because the testimony of record clearly indicates that the so-called search and seizure which accompanied the exercise of the arrest warrant at Scios’ home was reasonable and conformed to the Fourth Amendment, and to the decisions of the Supreme Court thereon, particularly its landmark decision in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) and the “plain view” doctrine, e. g., Coolidge v. New *965Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).
I. SEARCHES AUTHORIZED BY CHIMEL
The attenuation argument presupposes that the initial search and seizure of the “Your Pharmacy” file was illegal under Chimel, a recent decision which established the permissible scope of certain searches incident to arrest. This presupposition has caused me to review Chimel and its progeny as well as the testimony in the suppression hearing in the District Court. Such inquiry has convinced me that the parties and the trial court are misreading Chimel and the “plain view” doctrine, and that the facts of this case indicate the search and seizure of the file in question conformed to the applicable principles laid down by the Supreme Court.1
The controlling language of Chimel states:
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area “within his immediate control” — construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs —or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. The “adherence to judicial processes” mandated by the Fourth Amendment requires no less.
395 U.S. at 762-63, 89 S.Ct. at 2040 (emphasis added, footnote omitted).
Several observations should be made from the foregoing language. First, while it does refer to searches to protect the arresting officers, it is not limited to protective or security searches. It likewise authorizes certain searches for evidence that can be concealed or destroyed. Actually, protective searches may be more expansive.2 *966Second, it merely states that searches within the stated limits are “reasonable” and does not state that under certain different conditions more extensive or different searches might not also be reasonable. Third, it authorizes a “search of the person arrested.” Fourth, it authorizes a search of “the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items . . . ,” i. e., “the area ‘within his immediate control’ . . . from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” (Emphasis added.) Fifth, the basis for authorizing the foregoing routine searches, i. e., security of the officers and preservation of destructible evidence, does not authorize “routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs . . . Sixth, that the routine search of the room “in which an arrest occurs,” to the extent that such search may have been authorized by Chimel, is a limited search which does not constitute authority “for searching through all the desk drawers, or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself.” It is not necessary here to determine the full extent of the search thus authorized because the instant search was not that extensive. Seventh, even more extended searches could be made in accordance with “well recognized exceptions.” Thus, Chimel indicates that the controlling principle to be applied in determining their validity is still the reasonableness of the search.
Chimel clearly recognizes the right to search for evidence. See, e. g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973)3; United States v. Collins, 532 F.2d 79 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 836, 97 S.Ct. 104, 50 L.Ed.2d 102 (1976); United States v. Carter, 173 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 522 F.2d 666 (1975); United States v. Battle, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 510 F.2d 776 (1975). In recognizing the validity of intrusions to discover evidence, the decision appears to decide that the areas which may be searched for weapons and for destructible evidence are virtually coextensive with each other. Yet, in my view, the parties and the court have given too short shrift to the permissible evidentiary search in evaluating the legality of the seizure of the “Your Pharmacy” file. It also appears that adequate consideration was not given to the fact that Chimel explicitly recognizes that “a room in which an arrest occurs” *967may “routinely” be subject to a search, to the extent that it is “within his [the arrestee’s] immediate control,” if the officers involved exercise restraint and do not go “through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself.” (Emphasis added.) The majority gives crabbed recognition, ante n.15, to the “ample justification” that the Chimel Court finds for the limited searching of the area “within [the arrestee’s] immediate control” in the “room in which an arrest occurs.”
Chimel authorizes a search incident to an arrest of “the area within [the arrestee’s] reach . . . .” 395 U.S. at 766, 89 S.Ct. at 2042. Elsewhere the Court describes it as
the area from which the [arrestee] might have obtained either a weapon or something that could be used as evidence against him.
395 U.S. at 768, 89 S.Ct. at 2043 (emphasis added).
There is no requirement in Chimel or any other case that the Government must prove as a prerequisite to a valid search, as the majority argues, that the presence of the accused created a “danger” that he would “snatch and destroy” the evidence or that the agent seized the evidence under threat of its immediate destruction. It is sufficient that the “evidence” was situated within an area which would permit the accused so to act if he were of a mind to do so. Cf. Maj. op. n.15. And the arm’s length search that is authorized is not strictly limited to absolutely no more than the seated or stationary reach of the person being arrested — the majority misread the record when it construes the search as being limited to that point in time during which Scios was seated or stationary. Any reasonable interpretation of Chimel would include in the permissible search area that area within which the arrestee could reach after taking one step, as most people do when they reach. As the record here indicates, “with a slight body movement” (Tr. Ill, 48).
In light of the foregoing overview of the constitutionally permissible scope of warrantless searches incident to arrest on a warrant, we turn to the relevant facts as reported at the suppression hearing. The principal facts to be extracted from the testimony there received relate to the proximity of Scios to the “Your Pharmacy Service” file during the time he was in his office, as under some of the issues raised this geographical proximity is largely dis-positive of whether or not the file was “within [Scios’] immediate control” or his “reach” and thus legitimately searched by the police. There is unequivocal evidence in the record indicating that the file was indeed within Scios’ “immediate control” and at certain times within his “reach” and it was thus clearly erroneous for the trial court to find that the search extended beyond the limits permitted by Chimel.4
In this case, as a preliminary matter, it needs to be noted that there can be no legitimate question but that the file and its contents were destructible evidence. The statement by the trial court to the contrary — perhaps prompted by a confusion with contraband — is clearly erroneous. It is significant that the majority do not support the trial court on this point. This error alone is sufficient to reverse the trial court.
Also, destructible evidence need not be destructible instantaneously. The destructibility of the “Pharmacy” file is apparent from a cursory examination of its contents. The file is Government Exhibit I. An examination discloses that it is a small light brown manila folder IIV2" X 9" with a tab 3%" long that protrudes /i6ths of an inch above the top edge at the left corner. It contained papers on which were printing, writing and typing. Included was a bill of the Royal Motel in Washington, D.C. This single bill constituted a major contribution of allegedly inculpating evidence. The re*968maining contents of the file consisted of six sheets of 9 X 11% papers, some with writing and some with typing, five scratch sheets, two used envelopes, two calling cards and one duplicate original of a dealer’s special use certificate issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles of the District of Columbia, and one ordinary street map of Washington, D.C.
It is well settled that searches incident to an arrest can discover documents as well as other forms of evidence, United States v. Simpson, 453 F.2d 1028 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 925, 92 S.Ct. 2504, 33 L.Ed.2d 337 (1972); United States v. Kirschenblatt, 16 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1926), and the documents in question here, being easily destructible, were manifestly within the search authorized by Chimel, provided that they can legitimately be described as “within the area of the defendant’s immediate control,” or within his “reach,” or as having been within one of the exceptions (plain view) which the decision contemplated.
The trial court found that the files in question were not within Scios’ “immediate control,” stating:
In this case, even if the FBI version is believed, the defendant was seated at his desk and had been disarmed. There were three FBI agents in the room, including one who blocked defendant’s access to the credenza. The credenza was not within defendant’s immediate control, [5] the agents testified they sought no other weapons, and the agents could not have been seeking to protect destructible evidence since there was none.[6] .
The Court in Chimel stated:
There is no . . . justification . for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs — or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Id. [395 U.S.] at 763 [89 S.Ct. 2034],
The court concludes that a search of the credenza or through the file folders would have exceeded the permissible scope under Chimel and any evidence found in such a search would have to be suppressed.
Appellant’s Br., App. at 53 (emphasis added). This analysis proceeds from the premise that in this case the area “within defendant’s immediate control” is to be determined by what was within his “reach” solely at that moment in time when “the defendant was seated at his desk and had been disarmed,” and when “defendant’s access to the credenza” was blocked by one of the three FBI agents in the room. The statement that the agent blocked him may well be accurate, but in restricting its analysis to his permissible “reach” solely at that moment and to a limited view of the facts concerning “defendant’s access,” the court was applying an unduly restrictive reading of Chimel.
Further, review of the record reveals that the uncontradicted testimony of all parties establishes the fact, completely ignored by the defendant and the trial court, that Scios passed within less than arm’s length reach of the file folder when he entered his office and seated himself at his desk (Tr. 1,17-18). The file was then within his “immediate control” and his proximity to it at that time alone justified its seizure, e. g., United States v. Mason, 173 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 523 F.2d 1122 (1975); United States v. Patterson, 447 F.2d 424 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1064, 92 S.Ct. 748, 30 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972); United States v. Wysocki, 457 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 145, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972), which followed shortly thereafter. See Maj. op. n.15.
Scios also, on his own volition, and without being commanded to or hindered from doing so, got up and moved around the room after his arrest to go to the office *969door and to come back (Tr. 1,19). On these occasions, he walked through a passageway of only “about three feet” (Tr. I, 77) between the desk and the credenza upon which the “Pharmacy” file folder was located. Scios was not handcuffed when he first walked into his office (Tr. I, 17-18), when he subsequently “went to the office door” to let out a neighbor’s dog, or when he then “walked back around [his] desk and . sat down” (Tr. I, 19). During these three personal peregrinations past the credenza, Defendant’s Exhibits 3L and 3M show that the file folder was easily within his reach without need of even moving his hand appreciably away from his sides. Thus, on the occasion when he first entered the office, the “Your Pharmacy” file was clearly within his “reach” and also within “his immediate control,” and during the two subsequent trips he was in similar proximity to the place,where the file was originally situated. Scios’ testimony (Tr. I, 17-19) and his Exhibit 3L, prove that the file was within his reach and “immediate control” on each of those occasions. The agent was “fingering through those files” at this precise time (Tr. I, 17). Scios’ proximity to the file on those three occasions is all that is necessary to validate the instant search and seizure. The majority is thus in error when it characterizes Scios’ access on these three occasions as “prior access,” see ante, n.15 — it was access reasonably contemporaneous to the search.
It is a completely incorrect application of Chimel to deny that the file was under his “immediate control,” or “within his reach” when he walked past the credenza. That he thereafter seated himself behind the desk, with an agent between him and the credenza, does not invalidate the agent’s right to explore the files in open view on the credenza which had been within his reach on the three occasions referred to. We are not confronted here with the general exploratory search that Chimel forbids. We have specifically held that an object within three or four feet of a defendant was “within his immediate control” even when the defendant was handcuffed, United States v. Mason, supra. The distance between Scios and his files was less than that on the three occasions when he walked by the credenza and the file was just slightly beyond that when he was seated.
When the arresting officer was actually interposed between Scios and the files, it would be reasonable to conclude that Scios would not actually exercise physical control over the documents. However, if the agents were not present, the proximity of the files though slightly beyond his stationary reach when seated, was so close that it could reasonably be said that they were within the area of his immediate control. See Defendant’s Exhibits 3L and 3M. Exhibit 3L is reproduced at this point as Figure 1. (In viewing it the distortions of perspective should be compensated for.)

*970

*971The trial court, however, entirely overlooked the fact that Scios was not always separated from his files by more than an arm’s reach of distance. The majority also fail to deal with the significance of Scios’ easy access to the file on the three occasions prior'to the seizure. In addition the. majority attempt to assert a requirement that it must have been possible for Scios to “snatch and destroy” the file when the agents seized it. See Maj. op. n.15. Moreover, Chimel does not impose any such requirement but is somewhat broader and covers evidence that is subject to “concealment or destruction.” 395 U.S. at 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034.
The “concealment or destruction” that Chimel refers to is not confined to proof that the arrestee was capable of concealing and destroying the evidence in the presence of the arresting agents. In this respect and in others the majority misapply Chimel, Maj. op. n.15. Most egregiously the majority assert the logic that “it was not possible for defendant to snatch and destroy the folder [because Agent Swayze] was physically blocking defendant’s access [to the file].” Such contention fails fully to understand the “destruction” of evidence that Chimel seeks to guard against and the application of Chimel to this case. Chimel authorizes a search of the permissible area for “a weapon or evidentiary items . in order to prevent [their] concealment or destruction.” The “destruction” so referred to is not limited to a threat of present destruction while the agents are present. It also includes future destruction.
Thus, as applied here, the fact that the agents may have been physically capable of temporarily preventing Scios from destroying the file, while all three of them were in the room, is not the sole opportunity for destruction that Chimel recognizes should be prevented. In addition Chimel intends to guard against the later destruction of the file that could easily occur if it were not seized when it was discovered. If the agents were prohibited from seizing the file when it was discovered the alternative would be to leave it in the office. Some might argue that some of the agents could stay there while others went for a search warrant, but if the business that authorized their entry was concluded and a search warrant was required before they could proceed further, strictly speaking they would have no further right to remain in the building after the arrest was made. They would thus be required to leave and find a magistrate to issue a search warrant. After they left, Scios’ partner, who could be reached by their shortwave radio (Tr. Ill, 26), or his “girlfriend” (Tr. I, 15), who was in the house, could destroy the file. Scios’ temporary inability to destroy or conceal the file while the agents were present does not deny the agents’ right to seize destructible evidence that could be subjected to future destruction or concealment. As we observed in United States v. Thweatt, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 433 F.2d 1226 (1970):
We might add that obviousness is a form of exigency in the sense that failure to act immediately when confronted with evidence in this manner may result in its disappearance.
140 U.S.App.D.C. at 125, 433 F.2d at 1231. In addition, Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1940) and Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) both recognize the exigency created when the opportunity to search is “fleeting” and the evidence “may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained.” 403 U.S. at 460, 91 S.Ct. at 2035. To the same effect, United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 15, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2485, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977) states:
Such searches [pursuant to custodial arrests] may be conducted without a warrant and they may also be made whether or not there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested may have a weapon or is about to destroy evidence.
(Emphasis added.) Quoted in United States v. Foster, Stafford & Prince, 190 U.S.App.D.C.-at-, 584 F.2d 997 at 1002 (1978).
*972We have recognized that arresting agents who have no search warrant cannot lead arrestees from place to place inside houses and apartments and use his presence at each location to justify a search incident to the arrest, but when the arrestee on his own volition, or at his own request, moves around the scene of the arrest, he brings within his immediate control a wider area that may be subjected to a valid search. United States v. Mason, supra; United States v. Patterson, supra. Given the extremely small size of the room in which the defendant was arrested — “maybe eight by eight” (Tr. Ill, 13) — the defendant’s photographic Exhibits 3L and 3M show that one standing behind the center of Scios’ desk could touch opposing walls by merely taking one step in either direction (see reproduced Defendant’s Exhibit 3L). And because the agents in this case made no search beyond Scios’ reach or his immediate control, and even within that area made no attempt at a general search or even to “search through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself,” Chimel v. California, supra, 395 U.S. at 763, 89 S.Ct. at 2040, I find that the search was reasonable in scope and I cannot agree that it was unconstitutional. Thus the first ground upon which this search may be found to be valid is that the file, when Scios first entered the room, and shortly, thereafter on two occasions, was easily “within [his] reach” and within that area which could reasonably be said to be normally within the area of his “immediate control.” See Maj. op. n.15.
' Other circuits have not restricted searches to the wooden interpretation of Chimel asserted by the majority. After all, the Constitution permits “reasonable” searches. United States v. Patterson, supra, upheld the seizure of a “partially hidden [file] folder or envelope sitting on a shelf in a cabinet . . . four to six feet away from where [the arrestee] was standing at the time.”7 (Emphasis added.) “Immediate control” and plain view were both relied upon. In United States v. Wysocki, supra, a suspicious closed box “six feet from Wysocki” (obviously out of a strict stationary arm’s reach) was opened by agents investigating a bank robbery believing it contained a gun. It did not contain any weapon but some stolen money orders from the bank robbery were discovered. This search incident to an arrest without a *973warrant, but upon probable cause, was held to be reasonable and the money orders to be admissible into evidence. Chimel was cited as authority, and without referring to it as such, plain view reasoning was also relied upon.8 Both of these decisions, among others, support the validity of the search and seizure of the “Your Pharmacy” file.
II. THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
A.
Even assuming that the “Your Pharmacy” file was outside defendant’s “immediate control” or “reach,” so that its seizure would exceed the Chimel parameters, the particular search in question must still be deemed to be a “plain view” search and clearly reasonable under the Fifth Amendment. See, e. g., Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927). The Chimel doctrine has in no way restricted the permissibility or scope of plain view searches, Dorman v. United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 322, 435 F.2d 385, 394 (1970) (en banc); United States v. Thweatt, supra, 140 U.S.App.D.C. at 123, 433 F.2d at 1229. Such searches are within the “well recognized exceptions” that Chimel refers to. The “Your Pharmacy” file must be held to have been within the “plain view” of the agent whose right to be where he was has not been questioned here.
About sixty of Scios’ business files were out in open view on the top of the credenza, as shown by Defendant’s Exhibit 3L, in three wires racks each containing about 20 files. From an examination of Exhibit I it can be seen that the typewritten “Your Pharmacy Service” on the protruding index tab of Scios’ file is sufficiently large so that it can be read from a distance of six feet by a person with normal eyesight (Officer Swayze was, in fact, within 18 inches of the file when he was “guarding Scios.”) The files on top of the credenza were arranged three groups each containing about twenty file folders (Tr. Ill, 52 and see Defendant’s Exhibit 3L reproduced supra). All were in an upright position, and the file in question was about 10 or 15 files from the front (Tr. Ill, 21). It appears from very close examination of Defendant’s Exhibits 3L and 3M and Government Exhibit I, that the files’ tabs were staggered (Tr. Ill, 50) with the result (and no doubt the express purpose) that one tab would not obstruct the view of the tabs on the back files. The agent testified that he “looked down the line” of the name tabs and discovered the file (Tr. Ill, 19). The files were not in any way concealed or placed in a closed area, and they were open at the top. They were not in *974drawers. They were filed upright, each separated merely by a single piece of wire in the manner of phonograph record racks. All the files were visible, with the protruding topical, staggered tabs at belt-height, easy-to-read level (see Defendant’s Exhibit 3L).
In those instances where from the initial view it is immediately apparent that the article constitutes relevant evidence in the case the courts hold that “no search” was indulged in and that the item is admissible. United States v. Copien, 541 F.2d 211, 214 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1073, 97 S.Ct. 810, 50 L.Ed.2d 791 (1977); United States v. Wilson, 524 F.2d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 945, 96 S.Ct. 1415, 47 L.Ed.2d 351 (1976); Blassingame v. Estelle, 508 F.2d 668, 669 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Conner, 478 F.2d 1320, 1323 (7th Cir. 1973); Grimes v. United States, 405 F.2d 477, 478 (5th Cir. 1968); United States v. Wright, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 126, 130, 449 F.2d 1355, 1359 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 947, 92 S.Ct. 986, 30 L.Ed.2d 817 (1972); United States v. Cisneros, 448 F.2d 298, 303 (9th Cir. 1971); Grimes v. United States, 405 F.2d 477, 478 (5th Cir. 1968); Coates v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 97, 99, 413 F.2d 371, 373 (1969); Creighton v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 115, 116, 406 F.2d 651, 652 (1968); Hiet v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 338, 339, 372 F.2d 911, 912 (1967); cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra. In other cases where the initial observance of the article or articles in plain view is sufficient to find probable cause to conclude that they constitute evidence, but their precise evidentiary value is not immediately apparent and further inspection is necessary, we have also held that a limited search or examination is permissible. If the closer examination is conducted in a reasonable manner and leads to the discovery of relevant evidence the “search” is valid under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Mason, supra; United States v. Wysocki, supra; United States v. Patterson, supra; Dorman v. United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 323, 435 F.2d 385, 395 (1970) (en banc); United States v. Thweatt, supra; Ellison v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 3, 206 F.2d 476, 478 (1953) (small musical instrument box found to contain narcotics). These decisions apply a combination of Chimel and the plain view doctrine.
B.
What is required then is proof (1) that the agents had a right to be in the location where they were when they observed the article; (2) that the sighting of the object was inadvertent; and (3) that it was immediately apparent that probable cause existed to believe that the article constituted relevant evidence. I find that all three requirements were satisfied.
There is no doubt that (1) is clearly satisfied. The agents had a right to be where they were to execute the warrant for arrest. Even using a flashlight to peer into obscure parts of an area does not defeat a “plain view” argument, e. g., United States v. Johnson, 506 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 917, 95 S.Ct. 1579, 43 L.Ed.2d 784 (1975); United States v. Wickizer, 465 F.2d 1154, 1157 (8th Cir. 1972) (concurring opinion of Judge Bright); Marshall v. United States, 422 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1970). There is thus no reason here to hold the search to be unconstitutional where, at the most, all that was done was to riffle the raised tabs of several files in plain view until the file marked “Your Pharmacy Service” was noted.
As for (2), the trial court seems to have been misled in failing to apply the “plain view” doctrine by a belief that the discovery of the files was not “inadvertent” and thus could not pass constitutional muster under the rubric of a “plain view” search. It is unquestioned when law enforcement personnel know in advance that certain evidence exists in a particular location and they enter intending to seize it, but neglect to get a warrant and thereafter seek to rely on the plain view doctrine, that such search is unconstitutional. E. g., Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 470, 91 S.Ct. 2022; United States v. Griffith, 537 F.2d 900 (7th Cir. 1976). In such *975circumstances the validity of the search is defeated because the discovery is not inadvertent. However, the mere expectation of the presence of some evidence — even assuming arguendo such an expectation was present here — does not preclude application of the “plain view” doctrine, e. g., Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 472, 91 S.Ct. 2022; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 42-43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); United States v. Cushnie, 488 F.2d 81, 82 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 968, 95 S.Ct. 233, 42 L.Ed.2d 184 (1974). Practically every arresting officer might expect to seize some evidence incident to any arrest for a crime for which physical evidence might inculpate an accused.
The record here does not raise any serious doubt that when the arresting agents went to Scios’ home to arrest him, they did not intend to search warrantlessly for the file, see United States v. Sedillo, 496 F.2d 151, 152 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 947, 95 S.Ct. 211, 42 L.Ed.2d 168 (1974). They had no advance knowledge of the files and did not know that they would be admitted to Scios’ office. The agents presented themselves at Scios’ door prepared to arrest him when they were sure of his identity, and then it was Scios himself who led the police into his office so his female companion would not overhear their conversation (Tr. Ill, 45-46). Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the agents had planned to use the arrest as a pretext for searching his office, see United States v. Mason, supra, 173 U.S.App.D.C. at 177, 523 F.2d at 1126, or to acquire any items of evidence. The agents did not even know that the office existed, much less that Scios had a “Your Pharmacy” file with his other business files out in the open in his office. The agents did not know in advance whether any bugging equipment or files might be present. They actually did discover “some electronic equipment . . . some wires. Some little black boxes . . . ” in an attache case but they did not seize any of such material. No general search was conducted, but it is important to note that they turned up a loaded revolver, some shoulder arms and a sawed-off shotgun — none of which were seized. On the basis of this record, it thus appears that the discovery of the “business files” was clearly inadvertent.
It may also be stated that the discovery here was “inadvertent” within the Supreme Court standards because, to paraphrase the Coolidge standards, “the discovery [of the files was not] anticipated . . . the police [did not] know in advance they [would] find [the files] in plain view and intend to seize [them].” Cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 470, 91 S.Ct. at 2040.
C.
The majority, however, asserts that the file is not to be considered as being seized in a “plain view” search, i. e., that “[t]he folder was not in plain view.”
Such assertion involves an application of the third criteria, i. e., was the evidentiary relevance of the file immediately apparent when it was discovered. If the agent’s testimony is accepted that he “looked down the line” of file name tabs and discovered the file with the “Your Pharmacy Service” typed title on the upward protruding index tab, under the “plain view” cases cited and ante, p. - of 191 U.S.App.D.C., p. 974 of 590 F.2d, we have “no search” and hence no taint of the evidence resulted therefrom. Even if we reject the agent’s testimony, as the court apparently did in part, there is still no doubt that, following the discovery of 60 Scios business files in plain view, there was probable cause to believe that a file covering the work he did for the “Pharmacy” would be included among his other business files. The resulting closer look was therefore reasonable, and the mere discovery of the “Your Pharmacy Service” index tab was sufficient to make it “immediately apparent” to anyone that the file constituted relevant evidence of the offense for which Scios was being arrested.
It is significant that the agent did not examine the contents of the file (Tr. Ill, 30-31). It was seized solely because of its title, and I would hold that, from the title *976alone, it is reasonable to conclude that its evidentiary relevance was immediately apparent. At the least it was convincing proof that Scios, a wire tapper and bugger, had worked at “Your Pharmacy” where the wire tap was found. The assertion by the majority, thus fails to recognize the facts and the law. The “Pharmacy” file was one of the folders in plain view. See Defendant’s Exhibit 3L. To say that the single folder was not in plain view runs counter to Patterson, Wysocki and Mason, supra.
D.
The situation here may be likened to that of an officer who observes a substantial number of opaque glassine bags, of the kind that are usually used to contain narcotics, on a distant desk while he is making a valid arrest under a warrant charging a narcotics offense. Suppose also, as here, that the arrestee had himself led the officers to the room where the bags were in plain view. Under such circumstances, it would clearly have been permissible to open the bags to see if they contained narcotics even though at the moment they were beyond the reach of the suspect and it was not immediately apparent that they contained narcotics.
Similarly, if an arrest warrant was issued against a suspect for robbing a bank of $25,000 in currency, and the agents in executing it observed packets of Treasury bills on the top of the credenza, just beyond the reach of the suspect, it would be permissible to seize the bills and examine (search) them to determine if the serial numbers conformed to those on the stolen currency.
Business files in open view to an agent standing where he has a right to be in an arrest on a charge involving the suspect’s business may be the subject of a search and seizure just as much as opaque glassine bags and currency in plain view in arrests on warrants charging narcotics or bank robbery offenses. One may reasonably conclude, given the nature of the crime alleged, that such files contain potentially incriminating evidence, and when they are first observed in plain view, it is reasonable and permissible to make a further close inspection without any violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Scios was being arrested for an offense related to his business and, from a mere glance at all the files in plain view, it was obvious from their number, size, character, labelling and location that they were Scios’ business files. See Defendant’s Exhibits 3L and 3M. Just recently, in United States v. Mason, supra, a search of a partially opened suitcase was deemed permissible under the “plain view” doctrine, and there is no principled distinction between examination of a partially open suitcase and files with index tabs that were partially disclosed.
In this case, and others similar to it referred to ante, it should be noted that the plain view doctrine does not require the officer or agent to determine positively from his first plain view of the article or articles from a distance that the particular article subsequently seized is relevant admissible evidentiary material to a criminal offense. What is required is that the article singly or with other articles or containers (boxes, suitcases, brief cases, etc.) be in plain view and that from what is so observed the agent or officer be justified, from his prior experience or otherwise, in having probable cause to believe that the article or articles constitute a threat to the arresting officers, or possible evidence related to law violations — preferably to the offense for which the party is being arrested. It is not necessary to the validity of a plain view search that the agent, when he first viewed the business files, determined without closer inspection that one of the files was the “Pharmacy” file. It is sufficient if the “Pharmacy” file was one of the files in plain view of the agent and there is no necessity that he identified the file before he began riffling the tabs.
Thus, the plain view doctrine as applied in Dorman, Thweatt, Patterson, Wysocki, Ellison and Mason permits the agent to “search,” i. e., examine closer, the suspicious article or articles in plain view to determine if his suspicion is justified. The majority in n. 15 seems to be operating under the misapprehension that it was impermissible to *977“thumb through” the file tabs, to “leaf through them.” However, that is what an authorized search consists of, and since the offense was business related once the business files were inadvertently discovered out in the open where all could see them on the top of the credenza when Scios led the agents into his office, it was permissible under the plain view doctrine to examine the business files more closely and to discover the particular file which bore the “Your Pharmacy” tab. Actually it would have been reasonable to seize all Scios’ business files which were in plain view and search them for the “Your Pharmacy” file because there was probable cause to believe that such file would be included.
Both the trial judge and the majority make the error of contending that the inadvertence required by the plain view doctrine must be restricted to the point of requiring that the officer conclusively discover when the files were first observed that the particular item of evidence in question was absolutely material, relevant and admissible in the case. But, as explained above, inadvertence to that extent is not required. The discovery of the group of business files was completely inadvertent and that is all the inadvertent discovery that is required since the discovery of their existence constituted probable cause to believe that the “Pharmacy” file was among them.
In application of this principle courts have held it to be permissible to examine a closed box that the agent reasonably suspected of holding a gun and to introduce the stolen money orders that were discovered even though no gun was found. United States v. Wysocki, supra. Also, while looking for a gun it is constitutional to seize a “partially hidden folder or envelope” from a shelf in a cabinet which subsequent examination disclosed contained a “check . checkbook . . . and a safety deposit box key . . . .” that were admitted in the trial of the offense (forgery) for which the arrest was made. United States v. Patterson, supra. Following the same logic, in United States v. Mason, supra, we allowed the seizure of unidentified car keys discovered in plain view on a table in the apartment where the arrest was made, even though it was not discernible from the initial “plain view” that the keys were for any car that was involved in the criminal offense being investigated. In Dorman v. United States, supra (en banc), we upheld a warrantless search made pursuant to an entry on probable cause to arrest. The search resulted in the discovery in a closet in plain view after the door was opened, of a suit resembling one stolen in the crime being investigated, but while the suit was “readily identifiable,” a closer inspection was obviously necessary to determine that it bore the “label of Carl’s Men’s Shop.” The seizure under such circumstances was held to be reasonable.
Allowing narcotics officers to seize white powder in glassine bags in plain view at the time of a narcotics arrest is also everyday routine, and admittedly constitutional, notwithstanding that a subsequent test is necessary to determine whether or not the contents contain a controlled substance.9
Finally, we are admonished by Chimel that “the reasonableness of searches . [depend upon] the total atmosphere of the case” — which was quoted from United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 66, 70 S.Ct. 430, 435, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950). When this standard is applied it is my conclusion that the search and seizure of the file in *978question was reasonable and thus lawful under the guidelines established by Chimel since it was (1) within Scios’ reach and (2) within Scios’ immediate control within the small room. In addition, as a complete basis for reversing the trial court, I find that the file and its contents were properly seized under the “plain view” doctrine as set forth in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. at 464-473, 91 S.Ct. 2022. Such doctrine is one of the exceptions recognized by Chimel, 395 U.S. at 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034.
It thus appears that the majority are adopting an overrigid interpretation of Chimel insofar as it relates to the permissible scope of warrantless searches incident to arrests. Such ruling will unnecessarily handicap reasonable efforts to bring law violators to justice. I have particular difficulty with n. 15 in the majority opinion which in the fifth paragraph relies upon Chimel, and in the sixth paragraph declares that “Chimel is inapplicable.” In my view, as outlined above, the majority opinion misapplies the law in controlling particulars, especially (1) as to the search that was permissible because of Scios’ proximity to the files on three separate occasions at about the same time that the agent was looking at the files, and (2) as to the plain view exception. See Maj. op. n. 15 specifically. The recent opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), does not compel a different result in any respect. In fact, Mincey reaffirmed the continued viability of Chimel and the “plain view” doctrine, at 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, when it refused to validate the greatly delayed general search of the entire house which was not finished until four days after the murder.
I thus respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, join the opinion of Judge Robb, and join the result reached by Judge Wilkey’s opinion, but for a different reason. Judge Robb joins in this opinion.

 At the suppression hearing there were three separate transcripts, which will hereafter be designated as follows: Defendant Scios (Tr. I); FBI Agent Breen (Tr. II); FBI Agent Swayze (Tr. III).

. The “plain view” doctrine is completely compatible with Chimel. As Mr. Justice Stewart, who also wrote Chimel, remarked in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, after quoting Chimel:
Where, however, the arresting officer inadvertently comes within plain view of a piece of evidence, not concealed, although outside of the area under the immediate control of the arrestee, the officer may seize it, so long as the plain view was obtained in the course of an appropriately limited search of the arrestee.
403 U.S. at 466 n.24, 91 S.Ct. at 2038.

. United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168-69 (5th Cir. 1977):
The law in this circuit holds that police officers have a right to conduct a quick and cursory check of a residence when they have reasonable grounds to believe that there are other persons present inside the residence who might present a security risk. . . . The exigent circumstances presented by this reasonable fear of violence distinguishes this factual setting from Chimel v. California
United States v. Mulligan, 488 F.2d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 930, 94 S.Ct. 2640, 41 L.Ed.2d 233 (1974):
The search here [throughout the house] was to protect the agents from possible harm. The latter type of search is expressly condoned by Chimel .
Hopkins v. State of Alabama, 524 F.2d 473, 475 (5th Cir. 1975):
Both [Vale [Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970)] and Chimel] are distinguishable from the facts *966presented here. Vale involved a search for narcotics and Chimel for evidence relating to the burglary of a coin shop. Neither case presented the exigent circumstances and fact setting shown in this case. . The immediate need to ensure that no one remained in the house preparing to fire the yet unfound weapon obviously justified the warrantless search.
United States v. Hobson, 519 F.2d 765, 776 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 931, 96 S.Ct. 283, 46 L.Ed.2d 261 (1975):
Chimel was intended to prevent officers from using an arrest as a pretext for ransacking a defendant’s house in the search for evidence. Clearly, where the house is reputed to contain an arsenal of weapons and people who know how to use them and have expressed an intent to do so, some protective measures are in order. ... It was entirely proper to search each room for additional persons and weapons.
United States v. Smith, 515 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 1119, 47 L.Ed.2d 322 (1976) is to the same effect.

. In Robinson, the Supreme Court held that in the case of a lawful, custodial arrest the police could make a full search of the prisoner’s person whether or not there was reason to suspect that the arrestee was armed or in possession of destructible evidence. This decision suggests, and was chided by the dissent for suggesting, that the guidelines established in Chimel for the acceptable scope of a search incident to arrest could be applied without regard for whether there was, in the particular circumstances of the specific case, any plausibility in the claim that the arrestee might be able to reach weapons or destructible evidence. By the same token that Robinson’s person could be searched even though the underlying Chimel rationale of preventing the prisoner obtaining destructible evidence or a weapon was inapplicable, the police in this case should have been allowed to conduct a limited search of material situated in that area of the room immediately adjacent to Scios — provided they did not rifle through “all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas” — even though such material was slightly beyond Scios’ reach when seated behind the desk. This would be a separate basis for the search in addition to the plain view doctrine and to the fact that the file was within arm’s length reach of Scios when he entered the room immediately prior to the search.

. While it is not necessary to my conclusion in this case, it is my view that “immediate control” must be interpreted to mean that control which excludes the restraining influence and permissible control of arresting officers. Otherwise, since the arrest and presence of the officers could be construed to deprive the suspect of all mobility and control, the words would be meaningless. No area could be searched if normal control was not intended.

. The trial court erred in concluding that the area “within defendant’s immediate control” was to be restricted to the area that he could control while “seated at his desk” after he had just passed the credenza.

. The finding that the file was not “destructible evidence” was clearly erroneous.

. United States v. Patterson, 447 F.2d 424 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1064, 92 S.Ct. 748, 30 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). An arrest warrant issued in connection with a forgery was served on Patterson in her apartment at a time when she and her husband were in the living room. No general search was undertaken:
In the process of making the arrest, one of the police detectives went into the kitchen where he saw a partially hidden folder or envelope sitting on a shelf in a cabinet. The cabinet was four to six feet away from where Mrs. Patterson was standing at the time. The folder was in partial view of the detective because the cabinet door was about halfway open. The detective removed the folder from the cabinet against Mrs. Patterson’s protests and found, among other things, [relevant evidentiary articles] . . .. The detective testified he was searching for a pistol since he knew Mrs. Patterson was a suspect in the burglary of Mudrick’s apartment and this was one of the items taken.
447 F.2d at 425-26 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s position here is that Mrs. Patterson’s arrest occurring in the living room would thereby limit the search to only that room. The record discloses that Mrs. Patterson, of her own volition, had moved to the doorway between the kitchen-dining room area and the living room. Access to the kitchen-dining room area was available to her by merely turning around. This justified the detective’s precautionary measure of entering the kitchen.
447 F.2d at 426.
The record here clearly discloses Mrs. Patterson had access to the kitchen-dining room area. . . . Until . . . [she was handcuffed] that area continued within the area of her “immediate control”.
* * * * * *
The detective’s entry into the kitchen was reasonable in assuring the safety of the arresting officers. This area was within the immediate control of appellant’s wife. Therefore, it was a reasonable search incident to a lawful arrest. The evidence obtained would be admissible since “objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.” Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 993, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1069 (1968).
447 F.2d at 427.

. United States v. Wysocki, 457 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 145, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972). Wysocki’s arrest took place on probable cause without a warrant in a motel room 10 to 12 feet wide and 14 to 16 feet in depth. Wysocki was found in the middle of the room and the agents searched that immediate area. A closet door was open and Wysocki asked the agent to get some clothes. In doing so the agent observed a box which he thought “was a gun box” but it was six feet from Wysocki. Nevertheless he opened it and discovered a batch of stolen money orders. The search was held to be reasonable and the seizure of the box not to be contrary to Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971); United States v. Squella-Avendano, 447 F.2d 575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 985, 92 S.Ct. 450, 30 L.Ed.2d 369 (1971); United States v. Brookins, 434 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 912, 91 S.Ct. 880, 27 L.Ed.2d 811 (1971); Klingler v. United States, 409 F.2d 299 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 859, 90 S.Ct. 127, 24 L.Ed.2d 110 (1969). The trial court was' sustained in its refusal to suppress the money orders as the fruits of an unlawful search. The court noted that the officer was “where he had a right to be . . ..” 457 F.2d at 1160. The plain view doctrine was not expressly relied upon as such, but the reasoning is in that vein. What the court in effect held was that it was within Chimel, et al., to search (open the box) that was observed in plain view some six feet from where the arrestee was seated in the middle of the room. While Scios is a stronger case on the facts than Wysocki — because when Scios was walking around the room he was much closer than six feet to the files — the essential facts in Wysocki are practically the same as those involved with one aspect of Scios.

. The plain view doctrine is partially misapplied by Judge Tone’s opinion in United States v. Griffith, 537 F.2d 900, 903 (7th Cir. 1976) to the extent that it decides the search was not inadvertent because the “officer’s inspection was not inadvertent.” Under Coolidge v. New Hampshire, it is the “discovery,” 403 U.S. at 470, 91 S.Ct. 2022, of the suspicious article that determines “inadvertence,” not the subsequent closer inspection or examination of that article. Griffith, however, is saved from being controlled by error because the discovery was not inadvertent since the officers had been in the room earlier and had seen the various articles. Their subsequent return to the room thus puts the case into the category of a planned warrantless search for the articles they had previously observed — clearly an advertent search — a far cry from this case.