Peterkin v. United States, 5610.
| Decision Date | 06 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5615.,No. 5610.,5610.,5615. |
| Parties | Alex Junior PETERKIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. Lester PERKINS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
William W. Kramer, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for Alex Junior Peterkin.
Joseph C. Lynch, Washington, D. C., appointed by this court, for Lester Perkins.
Julius A. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, James B. McMahon and Richard L. Cys, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and NEBEKER and YEAGLEY, Associate Judges.
Appellants were convicted of possession of desoxyn tablets in violation of D.C.Code 1967, § 33-702(a) (4).1 On this appeal admission of the drug into evidence is challenged as the fruit of an unlawful search. It is contended that the police lacked probable cause to arrest appellants thereby rendering the incident search unlawful and that, short of probable cause, there was no justification under the rationale of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889 (1968) to conduct a protective search for weapons. Careful consideration has led us to the conclusion that the officers had probable cause to arrest appellants, and we find it unnecessary to reach the latter contention.
One afternoon while cruising in a marked car in the area of the 2800 block of 14th Street, N.W., two uniformed officers observed, from 10 feet away, appellant Peterkin giving "something" out of a vial to appellant Perkins in exchange for an amount of cash, consisting of "[t]wo or more singles". Peterkin then placed the vial in his left coat pocket. Appellants were not known as narcotics users nor under prior suspicion in connection with dangerous drugs. Nevertheless, being in a "high narcotic area" and having assisted in numerous narcotics arrests, Officer Busker concluded that "some sort of narcotic transaction [was] going on * * * [b]ecause [he] had seen narcotics in the past transported * * * in clear plastic vials."
The officers approached the suspects and Officer Christiansen asked Peterkin for some identification. Complying with the officer's request Peterkin reached into his left coat pocket at which point the vial in his pocket became visible to the officer. Instantaneously reaching into the same pocket, Christiansen seized the vial containing 22 tablets of the drug in question. Officer Busker then arrested and searched Perkins, finding two yellow desoxyn tablets.
We have said that the test for judging the existence of probable cause is whether "a reasonably prudent police officer, considering the total circumstances confronting him and drawing from his experience," would be warranted in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. Lucas v. United States, D.C.App., 256 A.2d 574, 575 (1969), citing Bell v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 254 F.2d 82 (1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 885, 79 S.Ct. 126, 3 L.Ed.2d 113 (1958). The analysis must be guided by practical rather than technical considerations keeping in mind the necessities of the moment and the reasonableness of the officers' actions. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); Bell v. United States, supra, 102 U.S.App.D.C. at 386, 254 F.2d at 85.
Appellants would require something more than the conduct witnessed in order to justify an arrest. They seem to view the behavior in question as innocent conduct or at the most as presenting a challenging situation at which the police could have taken a closer look.2 It is asserted that "many respectable people need look no further than their medicine chests to find a potpourri of pills in unmarked bottles and vials, transferred from the original containers for one innocuous purpose or another." While it is true that plastic vials, containing a variety of pills, are commonly carried on one's person for purposes of medication and occasionally the contents are transferred from one to another, appellants' statement minimizes the full import of the situation as it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. State
...655 F.2d 1302 (1981); United States v. McCarthy, 448 A.2d 267 (1982); Scott v. State, 549 S.W.2d 170 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Peterkin v. United States, 281 A.2d 567 (1971); Daugherty, 272 A.2d at 675.1 The majority says "it is clear" that the stop was for a DWI check rather than a drivers lice......
-
State v. Grant
...443, 453, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 507 (2004) (possibility of innocent explanation does not vitiate probable cause); Peterkin v. United States, 281 A.2d 567, 569 (D.C.App.1971) (mere possibility of innocent explanation does not negate finding of probable cause); People v. Hartman, 294 A.D.2d 446, 447......
-
Ball v. US
...and drawing from his experience, would be warranted in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed." Peterkin v. United States, 281 A.2d 567, 568 (D.C.1971) (internal quotation omitted). Thus, we are required to evaluate the reasonableness and strength of the inferences that c......
-
Matter of TTC
...Berkemer v. McCarthy, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3150, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (citation omitted). In Peterkin v. United States, 281 A.2d 567 (D.C.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 922, 92 S.Ct. 1788, 32 L.Ed.2d 122 (1972), we found probable cause to exist for arrest where a defendant was......
-
APPENDIX THE GRANT CASE STUDY AND RECORD null
...443, 453, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 507 (2004) (possibility of innocent explanation does not vitiate probable cause); Peterkin v. United States, 281 A.2d 567, 569 (D.C. App. 1971) (mere possibility of innocent explanation does not negate finding of probable cause); People v. Hartman, 294 App. Div. 2......