Court Opinion

ID: 9456247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:46:50.010573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:54.307238
License: Public Domain

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I believe the search was proper for two reasons: (1) The search was an incident to the arrest. Here, as distinguished from Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964), the search of the vehicle was made at the place of arrest and in the presence of the appellant. The officers had a right to search for dangerous weapons which might be utilized by appellant and for evidence of the commission of the crime, such as intoxicating liquor. The stipulation of facts makes it clear that appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. (2) Beyond question, the intoxicated condition of the appellant presented the officers with probable cause to believe that intoxicating liquor might be in the automobile. The fact that search revealed an illegal shotgun, rather than a half consumed bottle of liquor, is of no consequence. I quote Justice White in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 1981, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970)
“For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant. Given probable cause to search, either course is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
*638“On the facts before us, the blue station wagon could have been searched on the spot when it was stopped since there was probable cause to search and it was a fleeting target for a search. * * *”
(emphasis supplied).
The factual background before us presents a much stronger case for a search than was present in Maroney.
I would affirm.