Court Opinion

ID: 9458146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:43:59.715532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:39.162242
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring):
When this case was before the division, I voted to affirm the conviction. . But I also stated that reversal would be required
if the statute, though purporting to define a substantive offense, were designed to “authorize police conduct which trenches upon Fourth Amendment rights,” Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 61 [88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917] (1968), or if in practice it had no other legitimate effect. The statute itself would then violate the Fourth Amendment, and the good faith or reasonable belief of the police would be irrelevant to the constitutionality of arrests or searches made under it. A good faith arrest for a “sham offense” stands on the same constitutional plane as a “sham arrest” under a valid statute. But our Ricks decision . . did not hold that the narcotics vagrancy statute violates the Fourth Amendment, and the record in this case does not permit us to conclude that it does.
Judge ROBINSON’s careful research and analysis have persuaded me that the narcotic vagrancy statute does indeed violate the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, I join in Judge ROBINSON’s excellent opinion for the Court and vote to reverse.