U.S. v. Harris, s. 74-1590-74-1592

• Citation: 534 F.2d 207
• Decision Date: 18 May 1976
• Docket Number: Nos. 74-1590-74-1592,s. 74-1590-74-1592
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Timothy HARRIS et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

Page 207

534 F.2d 207

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Timothy HARRIS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 74-1590-74-1592.

United States Court of Appeals,

Tenth Circuit.

Argued May 1, 1975.

Decided Dec. 3, 1975.

Argued and Submitted on Rehearing March 23, 1976.

On Rehearing May 18, 1976.

Raymond W. Baker, Wichita, Kan., for defendants-appellants.

Stephen K. Lester, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HILL, SETH and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

HILL, Circuit Judge.

This appeal results from the convictions of the three appellants on charges stemming from an alleged interstate prostitution operation. Appellant Harris was convicted on all six counts of the indictment. ¹ Appellant Street was convicted on Counts I, III, IV, and VI. Appellant Cline was convicted on Counts I and VI.

Because of our disposition of this matter, we need not detail the facts concerning the offenses. Rather, the matters which are determinative of this appeal center around items admitted into evidence which appellants argue should have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The facts relevant to those contentions are detailed below.

On June 16, 1972, two undercover Maryland state troopers went to the house of ill-repute involved in this case, "Mitchell's Farm." After giving false information concerning their identities, the troopers were admitted. During their two-hour stay, one trooper purchased beer and was solicited by one of several scantily-attired females; the other trooper engaged in a card game and lost some money. The two men were invited to return and to bring their friends.

One week later, the two troopers returned with two other undercover officers. The plan developed by law enforcement officers was that these four would gain entry and the rest of the raiding party would later enter and make arrests. If no illegal activity were found by the four agents, they were to call and cancel the raid. Illegal activities, however, flourished at Mitchell's Farm. About 12:30 a. m., the raiding party made its entrance, without arrest or search warrants.

In the raiding party was Trooper Lincoln, whose job was to secure rooms on the second floor until such time as officers had authority to search. Entering the upstairs hall, Lincoln observed a black male, later identified as appellant Street. Lincoln yelled for Street to stop and identified himself as an officer of the law. Street ran into a bedroom and locked the door. Lincoln and another officer forced open the door and entered the bedroom. Street was going out the window when the officers apprehended him. A search right around the window revealed a pistol and some marijuana. After Street was removed from the bedroom, Lincoln found a photograph album, Government's Exhibit 71, protruding about an inch or so from underneath one of the night stands. Appellant Cline and her husband gave consent to search at 2:07 a Appellants first contend that the photograph album (Exhibit 71) and testimony regarding the other items (the pistol and marijuana) were the fruits of an illegal search and seizure and should have been suppressed. Appellants also contend that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Exhibit 71; they contend the prejudicial effect of that exhibit far outweighed any relevancy it possessed.

m.; a general search of the premises was made.

It is impossible for us to say that this latter contention has no merit. This Court does not have Exhibit 71 before it because the exhibit was lost, apparently during transmittal from the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to the office of the Clerk of this Court. Because we cannot review the exhibit itself for the alleged unacceptable prejudicial effect, a remand is required as to all appellants.

Because a remand is necessary, there is no need to consider sufficiency of the evidence arguments raised by appellants. Good judicial husbandry, however, demands that this Court resolve the Fourth Amendment questions concerning the testimony about the pistol and marijuana.

Appellants present one basic attack on the search and seizure. "Whether or not the officers who raided 'Mitchell's Farm' on June 24, 1972, should have first obtained a warrant?" They contend Lincoln had no legal right to be there because this was a warrantless search and no exigent circumstances are shown by the government. The government answers that a search warrant was not needed because Mitchell's Farm was a public place and the officers entered to make arrests, not to search the premises. The government's position is that these items were in plain view and were seized incident to a lawful arrest.

The Fourth Amendment reads in pertinent part as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." Consequently, we must determine if the law enforcement officers' actions were reasonable here. Clearly, there was time to get arrest and search warrants before the raid. In this case, we are dealing with a public place and not a dwelling. As the government points out, Mrs. Cline allowed any "horse walker" (the fake identity one undercover agent used) who came to her door to enter and engage in several activities along with other patrons. There is, however, no doubt that the better practice would have been for the raiding party to secure warrants before coming to Mitchell's Farm.

Having noted these factors, we cannot agree with that part of appellants' argument in which they contend that an arrest warrant must always be secured where no reason appears why it could not have been obtained. In Dorman v. United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 435 F.2d 385 (1970), the court stated, "The Fourth Amendment provides protection even as to arrest in a public place, though in such cases the requirement is only that there be probable cause and there is no additional requirement of recourse to a warrant."

The Dorman decision relied on Ford v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 352 F.2d 927 (1965). Ford presented a situation where persons were arrested in a car, probable cause was not disputed and warrants had not been obtained. In determining the arrests were proper and evidence seized incidental to the search was admissible, the court stated:

We find no case holding that a warrantless arrest in a public place for a felony, supported by probable cause, offends the standard of validity prescribed by the Fourth Amendment. The standard is reasonableness. . . . In Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327) . . . a warrantless arrest on probable cause was sustained notwithstanding it appears there was time to obtain a warrant.

Ford v. United States, supra.

The Supreme Court has not made a definitive statement on the subject. In discussing Here a public place is involved. The entry of the officers was for the purpose of making arrests; they intended to seek consent to search, and, after effectuating the arrests, did receive that consent. We do not believe the single factor that time was available to obtain warrants before entering to make the arrests causes the entrance into Mitchell's Farm and the subsequent search incident to an arrest to be unreasonable. This does not mean that this type of police conduct is desirable. Rather, we simply do not deem it unconstitutional in this case. This is not a case where this Court's supervisory authority is invocable, as state officials are involved.

a forceful nighttime entry into a dwelling to arrest a person reasonably believed within, upon probable cause that he had committed a felony, where no reason appeared why an arrest warrant could not have been sought, the Court pointed to Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967), and said that case ". . . certainly stands by negative implication for the proposition that an arrest warrant is required in the absence of exigent circumstances." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). The Court proceeded to recognize the District of Columbia Circuit's acceptance of that rule in Dorman but declined to decide the question in the case then before the Court. In Dorman, that court noted that a greater burden was placed on officials who enter a home without consent than in other types of entries.

Appellants cite many cases dealing with the necessity for search warrants unless exigent circumstances are present. In the instant case, the officers entered to make arrests. Their entry without warrant was reasonable as this was a public place and probable cause existed. The pistol and marijuana were seized in a search incident to an arrest. The constitutionality of searches incident to lawful arrests is well established. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).

Appellants also cite United States v. Resnick, 455 F.2d 1127 (5th Cir. 1972), as supporting the requirement of warrants arrest and search in the absence of exigent circumstances. Resnick involved a series of three warrantless searches. The court pretermitted decision concerning the validity of the first search and held the government had not met its burden of bringing the second and third searches and the subsequent seizures within one of the exigencies justifying proceeding without prior approval by a judicial magistrate. In that case, agents entered a fenced area three times and made observations from vantage points inside the fenced tract. Following the third warrantless search, the men inside the area directed other law enforcement people to raid the building. Arrests and seizures followed. We think these facts are distinguishable from those present in our case and certainly present a higher degree of unreasonableness.

Upon remand, oral testimony...