U.S. v. Sanders, 79-1661

Citation631 F.2d 1309
Decision Date22 September 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-1661,79-1661
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Willard R. SANDERS, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

John D. Hudson, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.

Don C. Nickerson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee; Roxanne Barton Conlin, U.S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, on brief.

Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, * and LAY and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.*

Willard R. Sanders appeals his conviction pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of narcotics distribution in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (1976). We affirm.

On October 2, 1978, a United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agent, Overbaugh, filed a complaint against Sanders. After a preliminary hearing on October 5, before a magistrate, the complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause. A federal grand jury, on October 25, 1978, then indicted Sanders in a two-count indictment charging violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (1976). Count I alleged that on or about October 2, 1978, Sanders distributed twenty-two capsules of heroin. Count II alleged that from May 1, 1978, until October 2, 1978, Sanders had conspired with Rosebud Biggles knowingly and intentionally to distribute a controlled substance. The case was tried to a jury. On December 20, 1978, the jury rendered a verdict of guilty on both counts. Sanders's motion for a new trial was overruled on July 13, 1979, and on July 26, 1979, the District Court 1 sentenced Sanders to a prison term of five years and a special parole term of six years. The same sentence was imposed on both counts, to run concurrently.

On appeal, Sanders urges reversal of his conviction on the basis of four arguments: (1) the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the contraband seized on October 2, 1978; (2) the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the October 2 statement made by Sanders; (3) the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the October 25 statements made by Sanders; and (4) Sanders was denied effective assistance of counsel. The facts relevant to these arguments are set forth in our analysis of the case.

Probable cause to arrest

On October 2, 1978, DEA Agents Overbaugh and Thornton waited in a car in the vicinity of Seventeenth and Crocker, Des Moines, Iowa, in order to observe Willard Sanders and Rosebud Biggles. The agents had chosen to conduct surveillance pursuant to information received from a confidential informant that Rosebud Biggles was trafficking in heroin and cocaine, and that he obtained his drugs from Sanders at Seventeenth and Crocker, specifically at the house at 853 Seventeenth Street. The informant indicated that the drug transaction meetings often occurred around noon and provided a detailed description of Sanders's automobile, including the license plate number. The agents had received information from this informant concerning the Biggles-Sanders drug transactions on at least a dozen occasions, with the most recent tip given only three days prior to the time they conducted this surveillance. The informant had previously supplied other information and had proven reliable regarding other drug transactions. His information had led to at least six search warrants and fifteen arrests and had never been discovered to be false. The agents, who already had some acquaintance with Sanders and Biggles, were also aware of the fact that in 1971 Sanders had been convicted of distributing heroin in an incident connected with Rosebud Biggles.

From a distance of approximately one-and-one-half to two blocks, at about 12:45 p m., the agents observed Biggles walk behind the 853 Seventeenth Street residence to an area where a door is located. Approximately five minutes later, 12:50 p. m., Biggles and Sanders walked from the house, crossed the street together, and entered Sanders's vehicle. Sanders occupied the driver's seat, and Biggles took the passenger seat.

After observing the subjects in the automobile for approximately one minute, without seeing anything happen in the Sanders vehicle, the agents drove their vehicle from their surveillance position to a position in front of Sanders's automobile. Agent Overbaugh then approached the passenger side of the Sanders vehicle and noticed Biggles make a furtive movement with his right hand from the area of his shirt pocket to the floor of the car in the area around his feet. Agent Overbaugh also noticed that Biggles had an excited facial expression. Immediately after this, the agents announced their identity as federal agents, and Thornton, who was approaching the driver's side, flashed his gold shield badge to Sanders.

At this point, we find that the federal agents had probable cause to arrest both Sanders and Biggles, or at minimum had a strong and reasonable suspicion that they were engaged in criminal activity. 2

(P)robable cause to arrest exists when an officer personally knows or has been reliably informed of sufficient facts to warrant his belief that a crime has been committed and that the person who is to be arrested committed it. United States v. Stevie, 578 F.2d 204, 208 n.4 (8th Cir. 1977), aff'd on rehearing en banc, 582 F.2d 1175 (1978), cert. denied, 443 U.S. 911, 99 S.Ct. 3102, 61 L.Ed.2d 876 (1979). * * * When independent sources corroborate the information supplied by the informant, there is probable cause for the arrest. United States v. Bazinet, 462 F.2d 982, 988 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 453, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972). Here, the facts known to the arresting officers plus the information by the informant constituted probable cause.

United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1171-72 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 939, 100 S.Ct. 2161, 64 L.Ed.2d 793 (1980).

Agents Thornton and Overbaugh had probable cause to arrest Sanders and Biggles. A reliable informant had provided information, giving the agents a reasonable suspicion that the meeting between Sanders and Biggles involved distribution of narcotics. Their personal observation of the meeting partially corroborated the information provided by the confidential informant. 3 Effective law enforcement required them to follow up on this suspicion. As the agents approached Sanders and Biggles, the furtive movement of Biggles and his contemporaneous facial expression further corroborated the information provided by the informant, 4 and the totality of information then known to the agents served to establish probable cause to make an arrest. See Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959).

Seizure of the packet of heroin

After Sanders and Biggles were removed from the car, Agent Overbaugh searched the person of Rosebud Biggles while Agent Thornton searched Sanders. Agent Thornton's search of Sanders revealed no narcotics or weapons, but Thornton did discover some "personal stuff," a billfold and a small amount of cash. Agent Overbaugh testified that he basically conducted a frisk for weapons. He recovered a notebook and $1,053 in cash from Biggles, then instructed Biggles to keep his hands on the roof of the automobile. At this point the door to the passenger side of the vehicle remained open, and Biggles, with his hands on the roof, stood just to the left of the door.

Agent Overbaugh then looked into the car and observed, on the passenger side floorboard, a small brown packet. The earlier hand movement of Biggles had prompted Agent Overbaugh to look into the car and directed his viewing. Overbaugh reached in the car, picked up the packet and, examining it, found it to contain twenty-two capsules of brown powder. At this point, Overbaugh placed Biggles under arrest for violating narcotics laws. Overbaugh advised Biggles of his constitutional rights, and asked Sanders if he would accompany the party to the courthouse. The agents seized the car, and escorted Sanders and Biggles to the United States Courthouse.

We find that the seizure of the heroin without a warrant was constitutionally permissible. Based upon reasonableness, the United States Supreme Court has approved a number of carefully crafted exceptions to the fourth amendment's requirement that government seizures should be made pursuant to a search warrant. 5 Three exceptions have possible relevance to the facts of this case: (1) a search incident to an arrest; (2) the plain view doctrine; and (3) the special rules applicable to automobiles. 6 The law enforcement procedures employed by Overbaugh and Thornton were completely reasonable and justified by the circumstances.

After the agents determined that they had probable cause to arrest Biggles and Sanders, the agents ordered them to leave their vehicle and searched their persons. The search was conducted within the immediate vicinity of the vehicle, and the floorboard of the car was within the area of Biggles's immediate control from which he might have gained a weapon or destructible evidence. After the quick sequence of events whereby the agents secured control of Biggles and Sanders and the contraband, Overbaugh formally informed Biggles that he was being placed under arrest and read him his Miranda rights.

The seizure of the heroin can be justified as resulting from a search incident to an arrest. The search and seizure of the packet of heroin was substantially contemporaneous with the arrest, and the floorboard of the car was potentially available to Biggles. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). Cf. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1923, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (limited weapons search appropriate after Terry stop).

Even if the packet on the floorboard were considered slightly outside the area under the immediate control of the arrestee, Biggles, plain view of the packet was obtained in the course of an appropriately limited search of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Glasco v. Com.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 26 Febrero 1999
    ...States v. Benson, 631 F.2d 1336, 1337 (8 th Cir.1980), vacated, 453 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 3153, 69 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1981); United States v. Sanders, 631 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (8 th Cir.1980); United States v. Dixon, 558 F.2d 919, 922 (9 th Cir.1977); United Stated v. Frick, 490 F.2d 666, 668 (5 th ......
  • U.S. v. Reed, 82-2447
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 13 Abril 1984
    ...officers. See United States v. Sibron, 392 U.S. 40, 66-67, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 1904-05, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); see also United States v. Sanders 631 F.2d 1309, 1312 (8th Cir.1980).8 It appears that when Officer Jones testified that he stopped Reed to arrest him he was referring to a detention of......
  • New York v. Belton
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 1981
    ...... On the one hand, decisions in cases such as United States v. Sanders , 631 F.2d 1309 (CA8 1980); United States v. Dixon , 558 F.2d 919 (CA9 1977); and United States ......
  • U.S. v. Ross
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 13 Octubre 1981
    ...ailment than when it contains contraband. Cf. United States v. Taborda, 635 F.2d 131, 138-39 n.10 (2d Cir. 1980).32 Cf. United States v. Sanders, 631 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 1980) (contents of a 2 1/2 by 3 inch brown manila packet could be inferred from its outward appearance where agents knew ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE SUPREME COURT AS BAD TEACHER.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 5, April 2021
    • 1 Abril 2021
    ...L. REV. 761 (2012). (105) 453 U.S. 454 (1981). (106) 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969). (107) Id. (108) See, e.g., United States v. Sanders, 631 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Dixon, 558 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. (109) See, e.g., United States v. Benson, 631 F.2d 1336 (8th Cir. 1980); United S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT