Downing v. Kunzig, 71-1493.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1493.,71-1493. |
| Citation | 454 F.2d 1230 |
| Parties | George L. DOWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, William H. Merrill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert L. KUNZIG, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
George L. Downing, in pro. per.
William H. Merrill, in pro. per.
Ralph B. Guy, Jr., U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for appellee; Harold Hood, Chief Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on brief.
Before MILLER and KENT, Circuit Judges, and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
WILLIAM E. MILLER, Ciruit Judge.
The General Services Administration, by authority of 40 U.S.C. Sec. 318a and 318b, is vested with the power to promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the government of federal property under its charge and control. One such rule provides that "no person while on property shall carry firearms, or other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes." Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 101-19.311. Because of an outburst of acts of violence, bombings of federal buildings and hundreds of bomb threats, resulting in massive evacuations of federal property, and direct financial loss to the Government,1 GSA in the fall of 1970 issued to all of its Regional Administrators across the country supplementary instructions directing that immediate measures be adopted at federal facilities within their areas for the protection of federal property and personnel. Specific steps included the use of additional guards and patrols, the identification of persons entering federal buildings, and the denial of entrance to persons carrying suspicious packages unless they should voluntarily submit such packages for examination. By GSA's message of October 15, 1970 it was specifically directed:
Information copy: All regional directors, PBS because of the recent outburst of bombings and other acts of violence, effective at once, at all entrances to federal property under the charge and control of GSA, where there are guards on duty, all packages shall be inspected for bombs or other potentially harmful devices. Admittance should be denied to anyone who refuses to voluntarily submit packages for examination.
These measures were in effect on December 7, 1970 when plaintiff, George L. Downing, a practicing attorney in Detroit, entered the Federal Building in that city, briefcase in hand, enroute to a hearing in one of the district courtrooms. He was stopped by a guard and advised that because of the rules then in effect he could not proceed above the first floor unless he either submitted his briefcase for inspection or left it behind until his return from court. Upon his refusal to do either he left the building without attending court. Soon thereafter plaintiff instituted the present action in the court below seeking a declaration that the acts complained of resulting in the demand that his briefcase be submitted for a search, and the GSA rules and regulations authorizing such procedure, are unconstitutional and void in that they require or direct an illegal search without a warrant and without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court sustained the defendant's motion to dismiss the action.2 In describing the procedure followed in Detroit under the applicable GSA regulations and directives, the trial court found:
By nature of the guard\'s placement, all persons entering the Federal Building located in Detroit pass by these officers, and those individuals who carry brief cases, packages, etc., are requested to submit to a cursory inspection in order to ascertain whether they are attempting to conceal explosives or dangerous weapons that might cause personal injury or damage to property. Those persons who refuse to submit to a brief search of the articles they carry are not permitted to transport the articles into other portions of the building. Because of the numerous attorneys who daily transact business in the eleven Federal District Courts located within the building, a procedure has subsequently developed whereby lawyers need only show their Detroit Bar Association membership card to gain unrestricted entrance to the building\'s premises. Federal employees of the building have also been issued identification cards which permit them unhampered access to their work areas.
The court's conception of the plaintiff's contention was delineated in its opinion as follows:
Simply stated, it is plaintiff\'s contention that his right to be protected against any unreasonable searches and seizures of his papers and effects as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution has been, and will continue to be, violated by the previously described rules and procedures. Plaintiff states, "that the interference by defendant and his agents with the plaintiff\'s free access to the courts without submitting to an unconstitutional and unreasonable search in violation of plaintiff\'s rights and in violation of the rights of plaintiff\'s clients to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Martell
...as a condition for entering aircraft or public buildings as a part of a regulatory scheme to assure public safety. Downing v. Kunzig, 454 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1972) (upheld the search of a briefcase for weapons and explosives pursuant to a rule conditioning entry into a federal building upon......
-
Clifford v. Harrison Cnty.
...Chandler , 520 U.S. at 323, 117 S.Ct. 1295 (noting routine nature of airport and governmental building searches); Downing v. Kunzig , 454 F.2d 1230, 1232-33 (6th Cir. 1972) (holding that entrance to a government building predicated on search was constitutional); McMorris v. Alioto , 567 F.2......
-
State v. Griffith, 35848-8-III
...which employ a brief stop and a visual examination of packages, pocketbooks, and briefcases are far less intrusive. Downing v. Kunzig , [454 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1972) ]; United States v. Edwards , 498 F.2d 496 (2d Cir. 1974). Id. at 673-74, 658 P.2d 653.¶44 The greater danger addresse......
-
US v. Ezeiruaku, Crim. A. No. 90-00230-01.
...agents. See Ringe v. Romero, 624 F.Supp. at 420 (citing United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir.1973) and Downing v. Kunzig, 454 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir.1972)). In light of the manner in which searches of in-coming passengers are conducted, it is reasonable to conclude that an alternat......
-
Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
...buildings to those at airports. Cursory searches of briefcases and container at courthouses are permissible ( Downing v. Kunzig , 454 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1972)), as are magnetometer screenings ( Legal Aid Soc. v. Crosson , 784 F. Supp. 1127 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)). §7:37 Government Employees The F......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
...brief stops and visual searches of packages, purses, and briefcases are permitted at courthouses to prevent bombings. Downing v. Kunzig, 454 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. At the same time, the Washington Supreme Court has rejected as unconstitutional the warrantless pat-down of patrons at rock concer......
-
Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
...buildings to those at airports. Cursory searches of briefcases and container at courthouses are permissible ( Downing v. Kunzig , 454 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1972)), as are magnetometer screenings ( Legal Aid Soc. v. Crosson , 784 F. Supp. 1127 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)). §7:37 Government Employees The F......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...brief stops and visual searches of packages, purses, and briefcases are permitted at courthouses to prevent bombings. Downing v. Kunzig, 454 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. At the same time, the Washington Supreme Court has rejected as unconstitutional the warrantless pat-down of patrons at rock concer......