Court Opinion

ID: 9457373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:20:11.199858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:19.664687
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing en Banc.
Before FRIENDLY, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD, MOORE, SMITH, KAUFMAN, HAYS, FEINBERG and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
FRIENDLY, Chief Judge:
On April 26, 1971, the Government petitioned for rehearing and, failing that, suggested consideration in banc of the decision of the panel, slip opinion 2197, which had reversed Manning’s conviction on the ground that there was no probable cause for an entry for the purpose of arrest and the consequent seizure of 113.32 grams of heroin, 67.60 grams of cocaine, and cutting and packaging paraphernalia which were found in plain view. A central element in the showing of probable cause was the report of an informer, previously unknown to the police and of untested reliability. The Government represented that what it regarded as the panel’s refusal to give any weight to the informer’s report because he was previously unknown posed a serious threat to law enforcement and contended that the decision ran counter to *998United States v. Soyka, 394 F.2d 443, 452 (2 Cir. 1968) (in banc), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1095, 89 S.Ct. 883, 21 L.Ed.2d 785 (1969), and also to United States v. Gardner, 436 F.2d 381 (2 Cir. 1971). The panel having denied rehearing, Judge Moore dissenting as he had from the initial decision, a majority of the active judges voted for in banc consideration 1 to be had on the briefs already filed and such additional briefs as the parties might wish to submit. The Government rested on its petition for rehearing; Manning’s able counsel filed a supplemental brief.2 We disagree with the panel and affirm the decision of the district court.
I.
A record of previous reliability of an informer with respect to the type of crime at issue is indeed crucial where probable cause is bottomed solely on the informer’s unverified report. If the Government had proceeded to act on the information given on the informant’s first visit, it surely would not have had probable cause or even reasonable grounds to suspect an on-going narcotics violation. See Williams v. Adams, 436 F.2d 30, 35 (2 Cir. 1970) (dissenting opinion), reversed by the court in banc, 441 F.2d 394 (2 Cir. 1971). However, when Agent Devine confirmed the informant’s report of Manning’s prior narcotics conviction, of his address and that of Audrey Abbott’s apartment which the informer said was the base of the narcotics operation, when the informant identified Manning’s picture, and when the agent observed the car identified by the informer and independently confirmed to be Manning’s outside his girl friend’s apartment where, according to the informer’s subsequent call, a narcotics transaction was about to take place, the level was substantially raised. It was raised still more when Devine learned over the car radio that the informant had called back to report that he had been to the girl friend’s apartment where he had spoken to Manning and seen the heroin and cocaine which was about to be cut and sold to two out of town customers who were also present. If the panel majority’s statement that “[t]he investigation by the agents to corroborate what the previously unknown informant had told them disclosed nothing to support even a suspicion that Manning was dealing in narcotics at Audrey’s apartment,” at 994 of 448 F.2d, was meant to refer to the situation at that time, we think it defies reality. By this stage a great deal had occurred to confirm the informant’s reliability, and it is strongly arguable that, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Harris, 1971, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 probable cause may have existed, although the precise issue there was the sufficiency of an affidavit for a search warrant. However that may be, anything then lacking in the scales was supplied by the agents’ hearing running, scuffling, and hurried conversations inside the apartment after Devine had knocked on the door and twice identified himself as a Federal agent. So far as concerns the issue of probable cause, this sufficiently distinguishes the case from Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 482-483, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed.2d 441 (1963), on which the appellant and the panel majority relied. While running and scuffling after such an announcement may be entirely innocent, narcotics agents are entitled to use their knowledge that efforts to dispose of narcotics and to escape are *999characteristic behavior of persons engaged in the narcotics traffic, and particularly of those known to have had previous experience with the criminal law. Chief Justice Warren said in Peters v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 66-67, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 1904, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), “deliberately furtive actions and flight at the approach of strangers or law officers are strong indicia of mens rea, and when coupled with specific knowledge on the part of the officer relating the suspect to the evidence of crime, they are proper factors to be considered in the decision to make an arrest.” As Judge Moore observed in his dissent from the panel opinion, 996 of 448 F.2d, Agent Devine was confronted with a situation where failure to arrest would very likely have resulted in the destruction of evidence and the escape of persons whom he had good reason to believe were engaged in perpetrating a crime within a few feet of where he stood. If Devine had not acted, there was every likelihood that Manning and his confederates would introduce a considerable amount of hard narcotics into commerce; moreover, on the theory of the panel majority Devine would not have been entitled to an arrest or search warrant if he had sought one.
With the greatest respect to our brothers who joined in the panel’s majority opinion, we think they erred by treating each fact in isolation. We should bear in mind our own admonition concerning the futility of efforts of counsel “to show that each piece of testimony is susceptible of an innocent interpretation if it stood alone. The trier is entitled, in fact bound, to consider the evidence as a whole; and, in law as in life, the effect of this generally is much greater than the sum of the parts.” United States v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389, 392 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 974, 87 S.Ct. 514, 17 L.Ed.2d 437 (1966). Although that was said with respect to the sufficiency of evidence of guilt, the principle applies with special force to an officer’s on-the-spot determination of probable cause. In United States v. Soyka, 394 F.2d 443, 452, 454 (1968), the in banc court gave effect to this principle when it said:
All that the informant had said was reinforced by what Soyka did, and what Soyka did was colored by what the informant had said.
As earlier indicated, we believe also that the opinion attached too much weight to the lack of a previous record of accurate information by the informer.3 This belief derives strong additional support from United States v. Harris, supra, which the panel did not have available to it. Such a record is indeed vital when the informer makes only a “meager report” that “could easily have been obtained from an offhand remark heard at a neighborhood bar,” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 417, 89 S.Ct. 584, 589, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), rather than one “which in common experience may be recogni2;ed as having been obtained in a reliable way.” Id. at 417-418, 89 S.Ct. at 590. Here the informer gave specific information on his first visit, and every bit of this was verified save for his statement that Manning was actually engaged in the distribution of heroin and eocáine. Then on October 8, he predicted Manning’s movements, as the named and reliable, but also deceased, informer had done in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). Like the unidentified “prudent person” in Harris, he recounted “personal and recent observations of criminal activity, factors showing that the information had been gained in a reliable manner,” particularly by telephoning that he had actually seen the drugs being about to be *1000cut and sold in Audrey’s apartment immediately prior to the arrest. And like the affiant in Harris, Agent Devine here had secured independent evidence of Manning’s prior dealings in the illegal activity specified by his informant. These added circumstances are quite as impressive in establishing the informer’s credibility as an agent’s perfunctory and usually untested recital that on one or two previous occasions the informer had furnished facts leading to a conviction. See United States v. Gardner, 436 F.2d 381 (2 Cir. 1971). Finally, here, prior to their intrusion the agents heard sounds characteristic of those made in attempting to conceal drugs.4
II.
Appellant urges that even if thei’e were probable cause, Devine did not make a sufficient announcement to justify kicking the door open.5 The point was not raised in the motion to suppress and accordingly was not dealt with by Judge Wyatt who ruled upon it. We could thus simply refuse to consider the issue altogether. United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907, 86 S.Ct. 887, 15 L.Ed.2d 663 (1966). In any event we are confined to “plain error” and the exercise of our power is discretionary. Id. at 280 and cases there cited.
In his direct testimony at the suppression hearing Devine said only that in knocking he identified himself as a Federal agent. When first asked on cross-examination what he stated when he knocked, he replied, “I identified myself as a Federal agent.” Defendant’s attorney then asked, “And when you knocked again did you again announce your purpose and authority?” Devine replied, “Yes, I did.” In direct testimony in the reconvened suppression hearing Devine adverted only to having identified himself as a Federal agent. And on cross on this occasion, he denied having stated why he was there at the time that he knocked. While this somewhat confusing record may well have been due to defense counsel’s failure to raise the point, we shall assume argu-endo in Manning’s favor that no express statement of purpose was made.
If we were writing on a clean slate, it would seem that when an officer knocks on the door of an apartment occupied by an experienced narcotics violator, which is reasonably believed by him to be so, and clearly identifies himself as a Federal agent, there is sufficient compliance with the spirit of the statute even *1001if perhaps not with the strict letter. A knock is at least a request for entry, and a trafficker in narcotics who has been told that this is being made by a Federal agent can have no real doubt that the purpose is arrest, search, or both, or that, if the request is not honored, something more will speedily follow. In the Case of Richard Curtis, Fost. 135, 168 Eng.Rep. 67 (1756), cited with approval in Mr. Justice Brennan’s dissent for four Justices in Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 48, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1637, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963), a majority of the judges were of the view “that no precise form of words is required in a case of this kind. It is sufficient that the party hath notice, that the officer cometh not as a mere trespasser, but claiming to act under a proper authority.” While the burden of an express announcement is slight, if the officer thinks about it, as Devine very likely did not, the importance of it, at least in a case like this, is equally small. However, it can be argued with some force that a contrary view was taken by the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brennan, in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958), unless that case rests, as it may, on the basis that the officer’s statement was in such a low voice that it may not have been understood. See 357 U.S. at 303, 78 S.Ct. at 1193.6
We think, however, that the seeming rigidity of Miller has been, tempered by the combined effect of a portion of Justice Brennan’s dissent in Ker v. California, supra, and the incorporation of it by reference in Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585, 88 S.Ct. 1755, 20 L.Ed.2d 828 (1968).7 The issue in Ker here relevant concerned an entry into an apartment effected by a pass-key obtained from the building manager. Although California had a statute, Penal Code, § 844, similar to 18 U.S.C. § 3109, the question before the Supreme Court necessarily turned on the Fourth Amendment itself. A majority found there was no violation in the entry; Mr. Justice Brennan, writing for four Justices, thought there was. However, he stated his position in a considerably less strict fashion than in Miller, saying, 374 U.S. 47, 83 S.Ct. 1636:
Even if probable cause exists for the arrest of a person within, the Fourth Amendment is violated by an unannounced police intrusion into a private home with or without an arrest warrant, except
(1) where the persons within already know of the officers’ authority and purpose, or
(2) where the officers are justified in the belief that persons within are in imminent peril of bodily harm, or
(3) where those within, made aware of the presence of someone outside (because, for example, there has been a knock at the door), are then engaged in activity which justifies the officers in the belief that an escape or the destruction of evidence is being attempted. *1002While it could have been argued at the time that these exceptions related only to the Fourth Amendment as such and not to 18 U.S.C. § 3109, any basis for such a contention is removed by Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585, 591 n. 8, 88 S.Ct. 1755 (1968),8 where Mr. Justice Marshall said:
Exceptions to any possible constitutional rule relating to announcement and entry have been recognized, see Ker v. California, supra, 374 U.S. at 47, 83 S.Ct. at 1636 (opinion of Brennan, J.), and there is little reason why those limited exceptions might not also apply to § 3109, since they existed at common law of which the statute is a codification.8
9
We see no reason why the instant case should not be considered to fall within the first exception. In addition to the general factors already reviewed, the informer’s report indicates that those within the apartment knew he had been there only moments earlier, and if this is so, the idea that he had squealed, whether of his own volition or on being apprehended, must have occurred to them. In any event the case comes within the letter of the third exception, and we perceive no reason for not reading it to mean what it says, particularly in a ease like this where more detailed explanation by the agents, however desirable, would not have made the slightest practical difference, since the conduct of the occupants of the apartment, of which Devine was aware in some degree before actual entry, showed that they knew his purpose full well.
Even if our reading of the Supreme Court’s intentions should be mistaken, the issue is at least sufficiently close that we do not have here a case of “plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights” F.R.Cr.P. 52(b). The error, if there was one, was far from “plain,” and it is clear that the occupants of the apartment would not have behaved one whit differently if the agent had uttered a few more words. Indeed, even if the point had been raised at trial, the case would seem a proper one for refusing suppression under the criteria stated in ALI, A Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § 8.02(2) (Tent.Draft No. 4, 1971), quoted with apparent approval in an appendix to the Chief Justice’s dissent in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, decided June 21, 1971.
III.
Manning’s supplemental brief suggests that if we should disagree with the panel’s ruling on suppression, we should return the case for it to consider his contention that the joinder of charges concerning heroin and cocaine in a single count indictment under 21 U.S.C. §§ 173-74, was improper in light of the differing rulings in Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L. Ed.2d 610 (1970), with respect to the constitutionality of the statutory “presumption” as applied to the two drugs. While we could do this, as we have done in cases where there remained important appellate issues other than that leading to in banc consideration, the argument is so patently devoid of merit on the facts here that the in banc court should dispose of this also, as we have done in other cases.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
OAKES, Circuit Judge

. At the time of the vote the judges in active service were Chief Judge Lumbard, and Judges Friendly, Smith, Kaufman, Hays and Feinberg.

. Before the case could be decided, Judges Mansfield and Oakes became members of the court. Although the statute, 28 U.S. C. § 46, is not altogether clear, we believed they were entitled to participate in the decision. However, for other reasons, Judge Mansfield elected not to participate in the consideration or decision of the appeal.

. A principle requiring suppression of evidence in any case where probable cause depended in part on information given by an informer whose reliability had not previously been established by a record of convictions would mean that he could never qualify except when his information was supplemented by evidence sufficient to establish probable cause without it.

. Manning asks that if we reject the panel’s ruling with respect to probable cause, we should either consider, or ask the panel to consider, his claim that the informer’s identity should have been disclosed. Disclosure would not have served its main function, namely, permitting cross-examination of the informer, since he had died shortly after the search. The conduct of the narcotics officers wholly negates any suspicion that the alleged informer was a figment of their imagination, cf. Williams v. Adams, supra, 436 F.2d at 38-39. It is thus hard to see what purpose disclosure would have served. Even if the informer had been available, it is not clear that disclosure would have been required under United States v. Tucker, 380 F.2d 206 (2 Cir. 1967), and the later cases in this circuit cited in United States v. Comissiong, 429 F.2d 834, 839 (2 Cir. 1970).

. 18 U.S.C. § 3109 provides:
The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.
Although the statute speaks in terms of the execution of a search warrant the Government conceded in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 306, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958), that the same standard applied to an arrest made on probable cause rather than on a warrant. Section 509(b) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, adopted after search in the instant case, has modified 18 U.S.C. § 3109 so far as concerns the execution of search warrants in drug cases.

. The officer merely knocked. When Miller asked, “Who’s there?” the officer “replied in a low voice, ‘Police.’ ” Miller opened the door on a chain and asked what the officers were doing. Before either responded, he sought to close the door but the officers ripped the chain off and entered.
Although the case was governed by local District of Columbia law, the Court treated it, with the Government’s apparent consent, as if 18 U.S.C. § 3109 furnished the applicable standard.

. Although Justice Brennan also discussed Miller in Wong Sun v. United States, supra, 371 U.S. at 482-483, 83 S.Ct. 407, this was in relation to what significance could properly be given Toy’s flight as bearing on probable cause. In that case the agent had not identified himself at the crucial time. As said in the opinion, “he affirmatively misrepresented his mission at the outset, by stating that he had come for laundry and dry cleaning. And before Toy fled, the officer never adequately dispelled the misimpression engendered by his own ruse.”

. In Sabbath, the agents had merely knocked, without revealing their identity, and entered the unlocked apartment within a few seconds. It was not even clear that the knock had been heard. The Court reversed the conviction, Mr. Justice Black dissenting without opinion.

. Mr. Justice Brennan joined in this opinion, as did all other members of the Court save Mr. Justice Black who evidently did not reach the question.