U.S. v. White, 80-1793

• Citation: 211 U.S.App.D.C. 72,655 F.2d 1302
• Decision Date: 12 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-1793,80-1793
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Charles L. WHITE, Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Page 1302

655 F.2d 1302

211 U.S.App.D.C. 72

UNITED STATES of America v. Charles L. WHITE, Appellant.

No. 80-1793.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 3, 1981.

Decided June 12, 1981.

Ed Wilhite, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for appellant.

Pamela B. Stuart, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, John R. Fisher and James F. Rutherford, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellee.

Before MacKINNON and ROBB, Circuit Judges and AUBREY E. ROBINSON, Jr. ^*, United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in United States District Court appellant White was convicted of the unlawful possession of a substantial quantity of heroin, a narcotic drug, in violation of D.C.Code § 33-402. ¹ In this appeal appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the heroin seized from his person when he was arrested because of the alleged nonexistence of probable cause to make the arrest. ² We disagree with this contention and affirm.

Prior to appellant's arrest in a high narcotics area, the attention of two experienced narcotics officers was attracted to an automobile with Virginia license plates No. KZS-210, which they had seen being visited by known drug addicts on numerous prior occasions in high narcotics areas. On this particular occasion through binoculars they observed a woman passenger, Reeves, in the car count out a substantial sum of money, receive a small object from the driver, then leave the car and be quickly approached by appellant who exchanged currency for a small object. The object was sufficiently large so that Reeves could not completely close her hand. Appellant then placed the object in his right coat pocket and walked up the street. The observing officers concluded that a narcotics transaction had taken place. They then radioed their conclusion to other officers in a car on the street who arrested appellant and recovered thirteen packets of heroin from appellant's right coat pocket. We conclude that the officers had probable cause to make the arrest and that the motion to suppress was therefore properly denied.

The two officers who observed the sale had previously demonstrated their ability to recognize narcotics transactions; ninety-five to ninety-six percent of their prior, similar observations had led to the arrest of persons possessing drugs. (Tr. 6-10, 68-71). In addition their conclusion in this particular instance was buttressed by the similarity of the participants' conduct to activity they had observed in high narcotics areas on numerous prior occasions when narcotics were sold. The character of the neighborhood as a high narcotics area was also a fact that the officers could take into consideration in reaching their conclusion that probable cause existed to arrest the participants.

Our decisions recognize that the "high-crime" character of an area is a relevant factor in determining probable cause. United States v. Thomas, 551 F.2d 347, 348 (D.C.Cir.1976); United States v. Brown, 463 F.2d 949, 950 (D.C.Cir.1972); United States v. Davis, 458 F.2d 819 (D.C.Cir.1972). See 1 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 3.6, at 676-80 ("The courts have rather consistently concluded that 'the incidence of a high crime rate is a relevant circumstance to be considered in determining the existence of probable cause,' and properly so.... (I)f an officer observes a street corner exchange of some substance for money, such an event takes on a special meaning if it happens in a part of the community where drug traffic is intensive.") (quoting People v. Oden, 36 N.Y.2d 382, 368 N.Y.S.2d 508, 329 N.E.2d 188 (1975)). Cf. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147-48, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1924, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (...