Court Opinion

ID: 9731482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:47:17.93038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:27.347572
License: Public Domain

TERRY, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
With all respect, I cannot join in the court’s opinion. Considering all the circumstances, I think the police were justified in going into the trunk of the car. Four facts lead me to this conclusion: (1) the extremely short interval — fifteen seconds — between the radio broadcast and the arrival of Lieutenant Pope; (2) the precise match, including the exact license number, between the broadcast description of the car and the car that appellant was standing next to (there can be no doubt whatever that this was the very same car mentioned in the broadcast); (3) the fact that appellant, when he saw the police, “reacted with a startled look, slammed the trunk down and walked away,” ante at 382; and, most importantly, (4) the fact that a gun was involved.
On this record I think the police had at least an articulable suspicion that the gun was in the trunk. Indeed, in light of Galloway v. United States, 326 A.2d 803 (D.C.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 979, 95 S.Ct. 1981, 44 L.Ed.2d 471 (1975), I might be inclined to say they had probable cause. But even assuming that the facts do not quite add up to probable cause, I think there was *388enough to justify a limited search of the car under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See United States v. Thomas, 314 A.2d 464 (D.C.1974); United States v. Green, 151 U.S.App.D.C. 35, 465 F.2d 620 (1972).1
I also find it difficult to distinguish this case from Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973), in which the Supreme Court sustained the warrantless search of a car trunk for a gun because of the police “concern for the safety of the general public who might be endangered if an intruder removed a revolver from the trunk of the vehicle.” Id. at 447, 93 S.Ct. at 2531. Because the trunk, “which the officer reasonably believed to contain a gun, was vulnerable to intrusion by vandals,” the Court held “that the search was not ‘um’easonable’ within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id. at 448, 93 S.Ct. at 2531. Indeed, the facts in this case are probably stronger than in Cady, since the police here had greater reason to believe the gun was in the trunk than they did in Cady. See also Sturdivant v. United States, 551 A.2d 1338, 1342 (D.C.1988) (“the presence of [firearms] creates a special exigency because of their potential threat to human life”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 956, 110 S.Ct. 370, 107 L.Ed.2d 356 (1989); United States v. Allison, 205 U.S.App.D.C. 270, 272, 639 F.2d 792, 794 (1980) (“The presence of the gun made the situation more pressing and the emergency more critical”).
Since my colleagues view the case differently, I respectfully dissent.

. Both Thomas and Green applied Terry principles in upholding a limited search (more like a "frisk”) of a car.