PEOPLE OF STATE OF NY EX REL. MUHAMMAD v. Mancusi

• Decision Date: 21 July 1969
• Docket Number: No. 69 Civ. 1999.,69 Civ. 1999.
• Citation: 301 F. Supp. 1100
• Parties: The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Shahid El Hussein MUHAMMAD o/c Maynard Prater, Relator, v. Hon. Vincent R. MANCUSI, as Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, New York, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

301 F. Supp. 1100

The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Shahid El Hussein MUHAMMAD o/c Maynard Prater, Relator, v. Hon. Vincent R. MANCUSI, as Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, New York, Respondent.

No. 69 Civ. 1999.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

July 21, 1969.

Milton Adler, New York City, for relator; Edmund R. Schroeder, New York City, of counsel.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of New York, for respondent; Brenda Soloff, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel.

METZNER, District Judge.

On this application for a writ of habeas corpus, the relator contends that the trial court improperly admitted in evidence 44 Travelers Express Company money orders found in a brief case and four such money orders found in a wallet at the time of interrogation of relator at FBI headquarters in New York. It is claimed that the searches of the brief case and the wallet were unconstitutional.

Relator was convicted in the state court of robbery in the first degree of the money orders. The trial court held a hearing in the absence of the jury on a motion to suppress the money orders as evidence. Relator had been arrested at a branch office of the Chase Manhattan Bank, where he attempted to cash one of the money orders. The FBI agent who made the arrest testified that they searched the relator at the bank, but there is no testimony as to specifically what they found except a nail file. The agent did not search the brief case at the time. The agent took possession of the briefcase and proceeded with the relator to FBI headquarters, where he was turned over to another agent for questioning.

The exact story as to the wallet is unclear. There is no testimony about the wallet being found at the time relator was searched at the bank. However, he testified that he was asked to empty his pockets at FBI headquarters, and the interrogating agent said he saw it on the table while speaking to the relator. This latter agent testified that relator told him he received both the brief case containing in excess of 40 money orders and the wallet from a man named Goldberg. It later turned out that the brief case had relator's initials on it, but he said he had loaned the case to Goldberg the previous day and it was given back to him prior to attempting to cash the money order. The agent searched the brief case and found the 44 money orders, and the wallet which had four money orders. Relator testified that he had no knowledge that he had possession of the money orders in the brief case. "The first time that I ever saw those checks in quantity was when the FBI opened the bag."

There is no question concerning the validity of the arrest. The question presented by relator is whether, absent a search warrant, the search was illegal as not being incident to the arrest. His case support for this proposition is Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, decided by the Supreme Court on June 23, 1969, and Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964).

On the day that Chimel was decided, the Court refused in two other cases to consider whether its ruling should be applied retroactively. Von Cleef v. New Jersey, 395 U.S. 814, 89 S.Ct. 2051, 23 L.Ed.2d 728; Shipley v. California, 395 U.S. 818, 89 S.Ct. 2053, 23 L.Ed.2d 732. In Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 252-253, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969), the Court held that the ruling of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), should apply only to eavesdropping conducted after the date of its decision. It pointed out that the limited retroactivity permitted by Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965), of the rule enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), flowed from the fact that Ma...