Court Opinion

ID: 9465655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:52:34.546623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:18.295051
License: Public Domain

BONSAL, District Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Conway has standing to contest the illegal search of the suitcase carried by Mazzelli when he arrived at San Francisco Airport. Implicit in this holding is that under the Fourth Amendment Conway had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Mazzelli’s suitcase because of his uncorroborated statement that he had a proprietary interest in the suitcase and the cocaine contained therein, and the fact that his fingerprints were found on the package of cocaine.
At argument, appellant’s counsel was asked if Mr. Conway’s Fourth Amendment rights would have been violated if the Government, having obtained a search warrant for Mazzelli’s suitcase, had searched it and found the cocaine. Counsel replied that the situation would be the same.
The narcotics business has often been characterized as one of “concealment and guile” and I think that the holding of the Court constitutes a dangerous precedent if narcotic traffickers are to be apprehended. It suggests to traffickers that they travel in tandem, each carrying the other’s suitcase, so that the suitcase of the person apprehended and the contraband contained therein always belongs to his associate. Carried to its extreme, such a practice could mean that a narcotic trafficker’s maximum risk would be confiscation of his contraband.
The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is “to deter future unlawful police conduct . . . .”, United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347, 94 S.Ct. 613, 619, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), and “compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effective available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1444, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). Notwithstanding its deterrent purpose, the rule has never been held to proscribe the use of all illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons. United States v. Calandra, supra, 414 U.S. at 348, 94 S.Ct. 613. E. g., Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954) (use of illegally seized evidence for impeachment purposes); United States v. Calandra, supra (use of illegally seized evidence in grand jury proceedings). The application of the rule has been and should be restricted to “those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” United States v. Calandra, supra, 414 U.S. at 348, 94 S.Ct. at 620. If Mr. Conway’s rights would be the same notwithstanding the procurement of a search warrant by the Government, the remedial purposes of the exclusionary rule would not be “efficaciously served.” Rather, it would thrust upon law enforcement officials the unreasonable burden of establishing the ownership as well as the possession of the suitcase.
*1161The court below proceeded on the assumption that suppression of the evidence as to Mazzelli (who was indicted for possession) required suppression as to Conway (who was indicted for conspiracy only), (“If I’m in error, then I might as well be in error on both of them.” [Transcript of May 11, 1978 Hearing, 136-137]). If the court was relying on automatic standing, this was error. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960); United States v. Prueitt, 540 F.2d 995, 1004 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Temple v. United States, 429 U.S. 1063, 97 S.Ct. 790, 50 L.Ed.2d 780 (1977).
Conway was allowed to establish actual standing by stipulating to a possessory interest in the seven pounds of cocaine found in Mazzelli’s suitcase and by swearing in an affidavit that “At the time of the search I had a possessory and proprietary interest in said luggage in that I purchased it.” [C.T. 82]. I believe that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish Conway’s standing. His prior conduct was inconsistent with his later claim of ownership. The record shows that Mazzelli and Conway each carried a suitcase and each attempted to convey the impression that they were not traveling together. When Conway was questioned by DEA agents at the airport, he denied knowing Mazzelli, even prior to being informed of the cocaine seizure. At all times relevant to the search, Conway denied any connection with Mazzelli, a fortiori with Mazzelli’s suitcase. Further, the evidence that Conway’s fingerprints were found on the package of cocaine is not dispositive; it is equally consistent with his being a coconspirator (“You’ll be arresting me, then, for conspiracy?”) and has little probative value with regard to his ownership of the suitcase.
The standing requirement of the exclusionary rule is premised on the view that the additional benefits derived from extending the rule to defendants other than the victim of the search are outweighed by the “further encroachment upon the public interest in prosecuting those accused of crime and having them acquitted or convicted on the basis of all the evidence which exposes the truth.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 175, 89 S.Ct. 961, 967, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). It should be incumbent upon those who seek application of the rule to clearly demonstrate their entitlement thereto.* In view of the circumstances of the instant appeal, I believe that the matter should be remanded for a full evidentiary hearing.
The majority concedes that the court below may have erred in accepting Conway’s uncorroborated assertion as to a “possessory and proprietary interest” in the suitcase. However, it goes on to affirm the decision on the ground that Conway established actual standing when he “stipulated” to a possessory interest in the cocaine.
I do not believe that this “stipulated” possessory interest is sufficient to establish actual standing under the circumstances. See, Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); United States v. Smith, 550 F.2d 277 (5th Cir.) cert. denied sub nom. Wallace v. United States, 434 U.S. 841, 98 S.Ct. 138, 54 L.Ed.2d 105 (1977). In United States v. Lisk, 522 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1078, 96 S.Ct. 865, 47 L.Ed.2d 89 (1976), law enforcement officials seized in the trunk an illegal firearm in the course of a concededly illegal search of an automobile owned by one Hunt. Lisk, while he had no possessory or proprietary interest in the automobile, had a proprietary interest in the firearm. He contended that because of his interest, he was entitled to have the firearm suppressed. Judge (now Justice) Stevens differentiated between a search and a seizure: “A search involves an invasion of privacy; a seizure is a taking of property.” 522 F.2d at 230. Judge Stevens then referred to Alderman v. United States, supra, which held that “suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be suc*1162cessfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are only aggrieved by the introduction of damaging evidence.” 394 U.S. at 171-72, 89 S.Ct. at 965. See, Rakas v. Illinois, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). Judge Stevens held that Hunt, as owner of the automobile, was the victim of the search and therefore had standing to contest the legality thereof, but Lisk, having neither a possessory nor proprietary interest in the automobile, did not have standing. As owner of the firearm, Lisk had standing only to contest the seizure, not the search. Since the seizure of the firearm was lawful under Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967), the firearm was admissible against Lisk even though it could not be admitted against Hunt. 522 F.2d at 230-31. Lisk has been followed by the Second and Fourth Circuits. United States v. Galante, 547 F.2d 733, 739 n.11 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 969, 97 S.Ct. 2930, 53 L.Ed.2d 1066 (1977); United States v. Jackson, 585 F.2d 653, 656-57 (4th Cir. 1978). Therefore I believe that the stipulation as to Conway’s proprietary interest in the cocaine was insufficient to establish his standing to object to the search of Mazzelli’s suitcase.
I would remand the case to the district court for a full hearing.

 “The burden [should rest] . . upon those who ask society to ignore trustworthy evidence of guilt, at the expense of setting obviously guilty criminals free to ply their trade.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 500, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3055, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (Burger, C. J. concurring).