U.S. v. Knobeloch, 84-1417
| Decision Date | 29 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1417,84-1417 |
| Citation | 746 F.2d 1366 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert KNOBELOCH, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Paul M. Storment, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Richard L. Poehling, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT, JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Robert Knobeloch was convicted in a bench trial of knowingly and willfully possessing and conspiring to possess, with intent to distribute, cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 846 (1982). The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district court 1 erred in denying Knobeloch's motion to suppress a quantity of cocaine seized from him in a motel room. We affirm the ruling of the district court and the convictions.
Two undercover agents had planned a drug transaction with William Hahn, who was then renting room 308 in a Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge. On the morning set for the exchange, however, Hahn announced that the delivery would take place in two installments instead of one. Within thirty minutes, he went to room 114 of the same motel to meet the agents; he was arrested there while counting the money after turning over the first half of the cocaine. Hahn identified Knobeloch as his source to whom he was to take the money before receiving the remainder of the cocaine, but he declined to lead the officers to Knobeloch or to call Knobeloch to assure him the transaction was progressing satisfactorily. Police officers, based on earlier conversation as to where the transaction might take place, went first to room 317. It was vacant so they went to room 308, knocked and said they were with the maid service. The officers unsuccessfully attempted to use a passkey and, upon hearing noises within, forced the door open, arrested Knobeloch and seized cocaine from his person.
The district judge, following the recommendation of a magistrate to whom certain pretrial motions had been referred, denied Knobeloch's motion to suppress the cocaine, finding that exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry into the motel room. 2 This determination is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. United States v. Wentz, 686 F.2d 653, 657 (8th Cir.1982); United States v. Jones, 635 F.2d 1357, 1360 (8th Cir.1980).
The evidence demonstrates that Hahn, upon his arrest, told the agents that Knobeloch expected him back immediately with the money. Since Hahn refused to call Knobeloch to reassure him, the agents believed that Knobeloch would suspect that the deal had gone sour before they would have time to obtain a search warrant. When they found no one in room 317 and heard a scurrying in room 308 after identifying themselves as federal agents, they feared that the cocaine would be destroyed. Upon entering they found Knobeloch standing near the bathroom door, and the cocaine was on his person.
In United States v. Palumbo, 735 F.2d 1095 (8th Cir.1984), we were presented with similar circumstances in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Granados
...created significant risks and the resulting exigency necessary for a warrantless entry and arrest. Id.; see also United States v. Knobeloch, 746 F.2d 1366, 1367 (8th Cir.1984) (fear of destruction of evidence was sufficient to constitute exigent circumstances justifying police officer forci......
-
U.S. v. Alvarez, 83-5208
... ... It cannot be sanctioned by us. The arrest of Alvarez was unlawful ... Although an illegal arrest does not ... (11th 1984) cocaine ... Robert Knobeloch 746 F.2d 1366 cocaine No ... (8th 1984) ... ...
-
U.S. v. Marin-Cifuentes, MARIN-CIFUENTE
...of the room would have alerted a second defendant who was in the room with the evidence. Id. at 1097. Accord, United States v. Knobeloch, 746 F.2d 1366, 1367 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied. 470 U.S. 1006, 105 S.Ct. 1362, 84 L.Ed.2d 383. See also, United States v. Kulcsar, 586 F.2d 1283, 1287 ......
-
U.S. v. Clement
...obtained in warrantless searches by a claim of exigent circumstances under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Knobeloch, 746 F.2d 1366, 1367 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1006, 105 S.Ct. 1362, 84 L.Ed.2d 383 (1985); United States v. Wentz, 686 F.2d 653, 657 (8th Under......