Conyers v. United States, 4491.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 4491.,4491. |
| Citation | 237 A.2d 838 |
| Parties | James B. CONYERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
John J. Donnelly, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.
Lawrence D. Knippa, Special Atty. to the United States Atty., with whom David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and James E. Kelley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and MYERS and KELLY, Judges.
A loaded pistol was found in appellant's pocket during a search of his person, and he was thereafter tried and convicted of carrying a deadly weapon.1
Contending that the search and seizure were not made pursuant to a lawful arrest, appellant made a pretrial motion to suppress the pistol. After hearing, the court denied the motion.2 Appellant argues before us that denial of his motion to suppress was erroneous and that, without the pistol, there would have been insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.
At the conclusion of the hearing on the pretrial motion, the trial judge announced that he made the following findings of fact: that two policemen, patrolling the streets in a marked police car, passed an automobile that was parked in front of a grocery store and saw two men crouching down inside the automobile, as if to avoid notice; that this aroused the officers' suspicions and they noted the numbers on the license tags, which subsequent investigation revealed to be registered to a different make automobile; that, while continuing their patrol, the officers again sighted the same vehicle and stopped it to investigate the apparent traffic violation in the improper use of license plates; that they spoke to the driver of the car, one Thomas M. Harley, but not to appellant, who was a passenger in the front seat; that Harley displayed a valid operator's permit but was unable to produce proper registration for the automobile; that the officers then asked Harley to follow them to a nearby police precinct where Harley's exculpatory explanation for his inability to exhibit proper registration could be verified; that although neither officer asked him to do so, appellant rode with Harley to the precinct; that upon arrival there, one officer parked the police car behind the station-house while the other officer directed Harley to go inside; that again, without being requested to do so, appellant accompanied Harley into the precinct; that inside the precinct appellant sat down in a chair and his coat caught on the handle of a pistol protruding from the back pocket of his pants; and that the officer, upon seeing the pistol, then placed appellant under arrest, searched him, and removed a loaded .38 caliber revolver from his pocket. These facts have ample support in the record.
The trial judge further found that appellant did not believe himself under arrest when he voluntarily accompanied Harley into the police station and seated himself in the chair. Appellant's subjective belief, however, although a factor to be considered, is not dispositive of the arrest question, and the trial judge therefore weighed the conduct of appellant in the light of all the surrounding circumstances and concluded therefrom that the officers did nothing to induce "a reasonable man, innocent of any crime," to consider himself under arrest. Hicks v. United States, D.C.Cir., 382 F.2d 158, 161 (1967), citing United States v. McKethan, 247 F.Supp. 324, 328 (D.D.C.1965) (Youngdahl, J.), aff'd by order, No. 20,059 (D.C. Cir., Oct. 6, 1966). Until the accidental revelation of the pistol in the police officer's presence supplied sufficient ground for a lawful arrest, appellant was under no restraint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Newson
...381 F.2d 20; Fuller v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 264, 407 F.2d 1199; State v. Seefeldt, 51 N.J. 472, 242 A.2d 322; Conyers v. United States, 237 A.2d 838 (D.C.Ct. of App.); State v. Bower, 77 Wash.2d 634, 440 P.2d 167.) Moreover, the fact that a defendant is being interviewed in the p......
-
People v. Neulist
...381 F.2d 20; Fuller v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 264, 407 F.2d 1199; State v. Seefeldt, 51 N.J. 472, 242 A.2d 322; Conyers v. United States, 237 A.2d 838 (D.C. Ct. of App.); State v. Bower, 73 Wash.2d 634, 440 P.2d See also, People v. Pugliese, 26 N.Y.2d 478, 311 N.Y.S.2d 851, 260 N.E......
-
People v. Yukl
...381 F.2d 20; Fuller v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 264, 407 F.2d 1199; State v. Seefeldt, 51 N.J. 472, 242 A.2d 322; Conyers v. United States, 237 A.2d 838 (D.C.Ct. of App.); State v. Bower, 73 Wash.2d 634, 440 P.2d 167.) Moreover, the fact that a defendant is being interviewed in the p......
-
Hayes v. State, 505
... ... Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121, 14 S.Ct. 40, 41, 37 L.Ed. 1021 (1893); See, ... The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Conyers v. United States, 237 A.2d 838 (1968), citing Pennewell v. United States, ... ...