Court Opinion

ID: 9758169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:14:23.689062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:25.077864
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Associate Judge
(dissenting):
In my judgment the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. The three men, including appellant, had been arrested and put in a police transport vehicle. There was insufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause to believe that the automobile in which appellant had been riding contained articles that police officers are entitled to seize. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). And certainly, Patterson v. United States, D.C. App., 301 A.2d 67 (1973), is not authority for permitting police officers to grope around under the front seat of an automobile in search of indicia of ownership. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.