U.S. v. Lucas

• Decision Date: 13 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 85-5213,85-5213
• Citation: 250 U.S.App.D.C. 264,778 F.2d 885
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Larry LUCAS, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 885

778 F.2d 885

250 U.S.App.D.C. 264

UNITED STATES of America v. Larry LUCAS, Appellant.

No. 85-5213.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept. 12, 1985.

Decided Dec. 13, 1985.

Sidney R. Bixler, Washington, D.C., appointed by this Court, for appellant.

Mona C. Mack, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Michael W. Farrell and Douglas J. Behr, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellee.

Before BORK and SCALIA, Circuit Judges, and MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Larry Lucas was indicted for possession of valium, a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 844 (1982). Lucas moved to suppress tangible evidence obtained in his warrantless arrest, arguing that the arresting officer acted without probable cause. Following an evidentiary hearing, Lucas' motion was denied by a United States Magistrate, and the Magistrate's recommendation that the motion to suppress be denied was subsequently adopted by the district court. On December 26, 1984 Lucas entered a guilty plea to the charged violation, but retained the right to bring this appeal of the district court's denial of his suppression motion. Because probable cause existed sufficient to justify the arrest and search of Lucas, we affirm the district court's decision.

I.

On July 26, 1984 at approximately noon an anonymous telephone caller told Metropolitan Police Officer Welsh that two women were then selling valium outside the police station (Tr. 6). The caller described two black women, one heavy-set and using a walking crutch, the other slightly heavy-set. The caller stated that she had made a previous call to the police station and that her sister had purchased valium from the two women and subsequently had become unconscious (Tr. 6-7). Officer Welsh left the station and searched the area, but did not see any persons matching the descriptions given by the caller.

The next day as Officer Welsh left work at approximately 2:00 p.m., he saw a heavy-set black woman with a walking crutch (Brown) get out of an automobile. Officer Welsh entered his personal automobile and used a pair of binoculars to observe the woman from approximately 20-25 yards away (Tr. 11). The woman was approached by another woman, a slightly heavy-set black woman (Bradford). Officer Welsh observed the second woman hand an unidentified "object" to the first woman, which the first woman placed in her right front trouser pocket (Tr. 12).

Within a "few minutes" (Tr. 12) Officer Welsh observed two cars pull alongside the two women, and each time Officer Welsh observed the woman with the crutch approach the passenger side of the car, move her hand in the direction of her right front pocket, reach into the car, engage in some sort of transaction with the occupants of the car, and return her hand to the area of her right front pocket. Brown and Bradford, who were indicted with Lucas, were within three feet of each other during these transactions and afterwards stood together (Tr. 12-13).

Shortly thereafter, a third woman (Jones) approached the two women, had a short conversation with them, and then walked over to appellant Lucas, who was standing nearby. Lucas handed Jones what appeared to Officer Welsh to be "currency," a "green object," whereupon the first woman removed an "object" from her right front trouser pocket and "poured" something into Lucas' hand which he placed in his left front pocket (Tr. 14-15, 50-52).

Officer Welsh, concluding he had witnessed a sale of narcotics, then entered the police station, sought the assistance of another officer, and went outside where he arrested Lucas. A search of Lucas' left front pocket revealed six valium tablets (Tr. 15). On his guilty plea before the district court, Lucas was convicted of possession of these tablets in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 844 (1982).

II.

A warrantless arrest in a public place is permissible only if the arresting officer has probable cause. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100-02, 80 S.Ct. 168, 169-71, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). Probable cause exists when, considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonably prudent person applying "common sense conclusions about human behavior" ¹ would believe that a crime has been committed or is being committed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2327, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); ² Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 161, 45 S.Ct. 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). The circumstances must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable, cautious police officer in light of the officer's experience and training. United States v. Davis, 458 F.2d 819, 821-22 (D.C.Cir.1972).

In this case it is clear that probable cause existed based upon the anonymous tip subsequently corroborated by the activities directly observed by Officer Welsh. As previously stated, the caller stated that two black women, one heavy-set and using a crutch, the other slightly heavy-set, were selling valium outside the police station. Although Officer Welsh did not see anyone fitting this description immediately after the telephone call, he spotted a heavy-set black woman using a crutch the next afternoon outside the police station. As Officer Welsh observed from his private automobile, the telephone tip was further corroborated when he observed a slightly heavy-set black woman exchange something with the heavy-set black woman using the crutch who thereafter furtively exchanged something from her right front pocket with the occupants of two automobiles. This all occurred in the same area that had been described in the telephone tip (Tr. 12-13). From this set of observations Officer Welsh could reasonably have concluded that the two women were selling drugs, as had been indicated by the anonymous informant. The accuracy of the informant's description of the two women had been corroborated by their presence the second day at the same place engaging in furtive transactions that usually accompany the sale of controlled substances the informant had described.

Appellant Lucas was involved in the third transaction observed by Officer Welsh. When a third woman approached the two women described by the telephone caller, a short time after the two car transactions, Officer Welsh watched Lucas give "something green" to the third woman as the woman using the crutch drew an "object" from her trouser pocket and "poured" something into Lucas' hand (Tr. 14, 50-52).

Officer Welsh then reasonably concluded that Lucas had at that moment purchased narcotics from the woman described by the telephone caller (Tr. 15). This conclusion was reasonable since it was based on suspicious observed events similar to the many everyday street exchanges involving narcotics and other controlled substances that have been held to constitute...