Court Opinion

ID: 9456038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:40:33.485125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:49.858500
License: Public Domain

BLUMENFELD, District Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but on the more limited ground that the scope of the search was permissible under pre-Chimel standards.
The fact that Pino was arrested within his apartment distinguishes this case from Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) and Shipley v. California, 395 U.S. 818, 89 S.Ct. 2053, 23 L.Ed.2d 732 (1969). The search within the apartment in which Pino was arrested was sufficiently “confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest,” Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 486, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964) (emphasis supplied), and was supported by Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947) and Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925). See also United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950).