Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Painten, 6720.
Decision Date | 10 November 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 6720.,6720. |
Citation | 368 F.2d 142 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Respondent, Appellant, v. Donald M. PAINTEN, Petitioner, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Willie J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Edward W. Brooke, Atty. Gen., was on brief, for appellant.
Louis M. Nordlinger, Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner was convicted in the state court of armed robbery and various connected offenses, and was given extensive sentences. His conviction was affirmed sub nom. Commonwealth v. Binkiewicz, 1961, 342 Mass. 740, 175 N.E.2d 473. Thereafter he sought a writ of error in the state court, raising, for the first time, the matters now before us. The writ was dismissed. Having thus exhausted his state remedies, he filed a petition for habeas corpus in the district court. The writ was granted, Painten v. Commonwealth, D. Mass., 1966, 252 F.Supp. 851, and the Commonwealth appeals.
It is necessary for us to consider only one of petitioner's contentions. In upholding the writ on this ground we rely upon the findings of the district court, which appear at 252 F.Supp. 855-856, except for the recitation of a conversation, more precisely set out hereafter, that took place when the police knocked at the petitioner's door. Very briefly, two policemen, knowing of a holdup but having no substantial clues, came across petitioner and one Ash, and followed them to petitioner's apartment. Their grounds for suspicion did not, even remotely, amount to probable cause for arresting either Ash or petitioner, either for the holdup or for any other crime. After arranging for plainclothesmen to station themselves at the back of the building one of the uniformed officers then knocked on the door. He testified as follows:
After entering the apartment, the police noticed a bulge in Ash's pocket, and removed some $200 in crumpled bills. They then called to the plainclothesmen to come up, and received the response that "someone" had thrown "something" out the window. This information led to the discovery on the fire escape on a floor below of a paper bag containing two pistols and some cartridges. Petitioner was thereupon arrested; the apartment was searched, and a large amount of currency was found under a mattress. At petitioner's trial the guns and bills were introduced in evidence.
Although these events took place in 1958 it is conceded that petitioner is in a position to obtain the benefits of the doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081.
This case falls over the permissible line that we recently sought to delineate in Robbins v. MacKenzie, 1966, 1 Cir., 364 F.2d 45, cert. den. 10/17/66, 87 S.Ct. 215. In that case the district court found, on adequate evidence, that no search was intended. We held that where the police, having reasonable suspicion but not probable cause, knocked on a door and asked to talk, and had no other purpose, they were entitled to treat an invitation to enter as voluntary consent. Our discussion need not be repeated, but we distinguished cases where the purpose of the police was not merely to talk, but to make a search.
In the case at bar the police sought entry without stating their purpose. If this was a request to make a search, acquiescence when police knock and exhibit a badge is not true consent to a search, as the cases cited in Judge Coffin's dissenting opinion in MacKenzie make clear. The Commonwealth's own evidence indicates that a search was in fact intended. In addition, the district court found that the police purpose was to arrest petitioner, although they had no warrant or ground for obtaining one. The Commonwealth disputes this appraisal of the testimony, and the correctness of the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Lopez
...F.2d at 303 (officers went to defendant's home for sole purpose of talking to him and not to search). Contrast Commonwealth v. Painten, 368 F.2d 142, 143-144 (1st Cir.1966), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 560, 88 S.Ct. 660, 19 L.Ed.2d 770 (1968) (search was likely intended where police sought en......
-
Com. v. Borges
...immediate response to the illegal police action. See United States v. Beck, 602 F.2d 726, 729-730 (5th Cir.1979); Massachusetts v. Painten, 368 F.2d 142, 144 (1st Cir.1966); Hobson v. United States, 226 F.2d 890, 894 (8th Cir.1955). Although, in the present case, the defendant attempted bot......
-
Gordon v. State
...the Scott doctrine is the sound notion, earlier expressed by a panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts v. Painten, 368 F.2d 142 (1st Cir.1966), that "sending state and federal courts on an expedition into the minds of police officers would produce a grave and fruitless ......
-
United States ex rel. Thomas v. State of New Jersey, 72-1361.
...cert. denied, 382 U.S. 945, 86 S.Ct. 402, 15 L. Ed.2d 354 (1965); Painten v. Massachusetts, 254 F.Supp. 246 (D.Mass), aff'd, 368 F.2d 142 (1st Cir. 1966), cert. granted, 386 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 955, 17 L.Ed.2d 805 (1967), cert. dismissed, 389 U.S. 560, 88 S.Ct. 660, 19 L.Ed.2d 770 (1968). Th......
-
Fourth amendment primer
...of M.D.B ., 601 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999); State v. Hart , 639 N.W.2d 213 (WI Ct. App. 2001); and Massachusetts v. Painten , 368 F.2d 142 (1st Cir 1966) (property abandoned as the result of unlawful police conduct must be suppressed). Putting a grocery bag down while being questioned......
-
Fourth amendment primer
...of M.D.B ., 601 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999); State v. Hart , 639 N.W.2d 213 (WI Ct. App. 2001); and Massachusetts v. Painten , 368 F.2d 142 (1st Cir 1966) (property abandoned as the result of unlawful police conduct must be suppressed). Putting a grocery bag down while being questioned......
-
Fourth Amendment Primer
...of M.D.B ., 601 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999); State v. Hart , 639 N.W.2d 213 (WI Ct. App. 2001); and Massachusetts v. Painten , 368 F.2d 142 (1st Cir 1966) (property abandoned as the result of unlawful police conduct must be suppressed). Putting a grocery bag down while being questioned......
-
Fourth Amendment Primer
...of M.D.B ., 601 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999); State v. Hart , 639 N.W.2d 213 (WI Ct. App. 2001); and Massachusetts v. Painten , 368 F.2d 142 (1st Cir 1966) (property abandoned as the result of unlawful police conduct must be suppressed). Putting a grocery bag down while being questioned......