Robinson v. United States

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
• Writing for the Court: EDGERTON, WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit
• Citation: Robinson v. United States, 283 F.2d 508, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 22 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
• Decision Date: 15 September 1960
• Docket Number: 15722.,15658,No. 15652,15652
• Parties: James W. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Thomas F. DAWSON, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Howard H. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

109 US App. DC 22, 283 F.2d 508 (1960)

James W. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Thomas F. DAWSON, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Howard H. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Nos. 15652, 15658, 15722.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 23, 1960.

Decided September 15, 1960.

Petition for Rehearing Denied November 15, 1960.

Petition for Rehearing Denied November 30, 1960.

Mr. De Long Harris, Washington, D. C., for appellant in No. 15,652. Mr. Robert M. Lichtman, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. J. Ronald Trost, Washington, D. C., (both appointed by this court) was on the brief, for appellant in No. 15,658. Mr. Rex K. Nelson, Washington, D. C., for appellant in No. 15,722.

Mr. John Jude O'Donnell, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc in No. 15,658 Denied November 15, 1960.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc in No. 15,722 Denied November 30, 1960.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge.

Defendants-appellants were convicted in the District Court of housebreaking and grand larceny. D.C.Code, §§ 22-1801 (1951), 22-2201 (1960), 22-403 (1951). On appeal, they challenge as illegal their arrest and the search and seizure which followed. The trial court erred, they say, in denying their motion to suppress the evidence so obtained. At the hearing on the motion, the following appeared. The defendants, speeding through the streets of Washington at more than 60 miles per hour, at about 4:30 on a Sunday morning, were stopped by police officers. When one of the defendants opened the door of the car an interior light came on, revealing to one of the officers a roll of coins on the floor in front of the front seat, as well as a partly-concealed canvas bag, apparently a money bag of the sort used by banks, with loose coins protruding from its opening. The officers ordered the defendants to leave the car, and asked them about the money. The defendants remained silent. One of the officers then used his flashlight and observed another bag of the same sort in the rear of the car. The defendants were thereupon taken to police headquarters, where the money was soon identified with reasonable certainty as the loot from the burglary — just committed — of a pharmacy in another part of the city. The trial judge ruled that probable cause existed for the arrest of the defendants, and that a subsequent further search of the automobile, resulting in the seizure of certain tools therefrom, was proper. We agree. See Bell v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 254 F.2d 82, certiorari denied 1958, 358 U.S. 885, 79 S.Ct. 126, 3 L.Ed.2d 113.

Appellants Robinson and Williams complain that their clothing was removed at police headquarters, shortly after their arrest, and was subjected to tests at the laboratories of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These tests revealed paint chips and other debris corresponding to like materials found at the scene of the burglary, and at a place where a safe stolen from the pharmacy had been opened. We think that this procedure was proper, since probable cause to believe appellants guilty of housebreaking and larceny had already appeared, and appellants were validly under arrest therefor. See, e. g., Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652; Morton v. United...