Court Opinion

ID: 9477953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:35:42.75693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:08.551323
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in affirming the denial of Gor-ski’s motion to suppress his statements to government agents after his arrest. I dissent from the court’s remand for inquiry into whether an inventory search of the bag was a routine procedure.
Given the conversation overheard two hours earlier between Gorski and Catucei, the agents had every reason to believe that Cabrera had delivered to Gorski a bag containing a kilogram of cocaine. Thus, the agents had probable cause to arrest Gorski. When they approached Gorski and Cabrera with guns drawn, Gorski and Cabrera were ordered to put their hands on top of the car. As they did so, Foster took the bag from Gorski and put it on the ground. As an article which was in Gorski’s possession at the time of his arrest it was subject to search then and there without delay.
The reasons for allowing, indeed expecting, officers of the law to search an arres-tee upon arrest are well recognized and beyond question. The officers must make sure for their own safety and the safety of bystanders that the person arrested has no weapon with which to resist arrest. Because a search for weapons is always permissible, it is well established that any evidence of crime discovered in the course of such a search is subject to seizure. See United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). The appearance and weight of the package confirmed the belief of the officers that it contained the kilogram of cocaine. Even so, it is elementary law enforcement to guard against possible surprise.
No warrant was necessary. There is no reason in cases as plain and certain as this one to require any blessing from a judicial officer or to establish that a later inventory search would have led to the same result.
I would affirm the judgment in all respects.