553 F.2d 1132 (8th Cir. 1977), 76-1560, United States v. Young

Docket Nº:76-1560, 76-1561.
Citation:553 F.2d 1132
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sylvester YOUNG, Jr., Appellant.
Case Date:April 14, 1977
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 1132

553 F.2d 1132 (8th Cir. 1977)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


Sylvester YOUNG, Jr., Appellant.

Nos. 76-1560, 76-1561.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

April 14, 1977

Submitted Nov. 8, 1976.

Certiorari Denied June 6, 1977.

See 97 S.Ct. 2686.

Page 1133

Sloan R. Wilson, Kansas City Mo., on the brief for appellant.

Robert B. Schneider, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee; Bert C. Hurn, U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., on the brief.

Before BRIGHT and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge. [*]

WEBSTER, Circuit Judge.

Sylvester Young, Jr. was sentenced to three consecutive twenty-five year terms of imprisonment following his conviction on two counts of aggravated bank robbery and one count of attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 2113(a) and (d). In this appeal he contends that the District Court 1 erred in failing to suppress physical evidence seized by evidence technicians in a warrantless search of the house where appellant had been apprehended. He also raises a number of alleged trial errors which will be considered seriatim. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

The evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, showed that appellant participated in the armed robbery of the Goppert Bank and Trust Company in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 16, 1975, and the Central Bank, also in Kansas City, on August 28, 1975. 2 He also participated in the attempted armed robbery of the Goppert Bank on August 14, 1975. 3

Following the August 28 robbery, in which at least three persons were known to have participated, appellant engaged in a shoot-out with the police tactical unit at a residence at 4429 Highland, Kansas City. His father, a Kansas City detective, persuaded him to surrender. After appellant surrendered, police demanded that any other occupants of the house surrender, but they received no response. They fired tear gas into the house, entered, and searched for other occupants. The house was vacant, but the police did see large quantities of money, some of it burnt, on the kitchen floor and stove.

As the police were leaving, police evidence technicians entered the house to secure evidence and take photographs. In the kitchen they found food redemption certificates

Page 1134

on top of money on the floor and a deposit receipt from the Central Bank. In one bedroom they noticed a hole in a wall in which they found more money. They returned and completed their investigation the next day, August 29. No search warrant was ever obtained.

Appellant moved to suppress all evidence discovered in the house during the two days of warrantless searches. In response to appellant's motion, the government stated that it would not seek to introduce any evidence discovered on August 29. The District Court expressed its opinion that the August 29 warrantless search violated appellant's Fourth Amendment rights, but in view of the government's representations, denied as moot appellant's motion to suppress the evidence seized that day. It indicated its intention to admit all relevant evidence that was in plain view of the police when they entered the residence on August 28 to ascertain whether any other individuals were present. Following a second hearing at which the government produced evidence on what was seized on August 28, the District Court held all such evidence to be admissible under the "plain view" doctrine. It made no distinction between the evidence seen by the police searching for other robbers and weapons and the additional evidence seized by the evidence technicians who entered the house after it had been secured by the police. The District Court ruled that both the money found in the kitchen and that found in the hole in the bedroom wall would be admissible.


The original warrantless entry by the police to search for other occupants and weapons was proper...

To continue reading