United States v. Bolden, 80-1195.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1195.,80-1195. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. James BOLDEN, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Michael S. Pasano, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty., and John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Before NEWMAN, Chief Judge, and MACK and PRYOR, Associate Judges.
The government appeals from an order suppressing the introduction into evidence of a dangerous drug, phencyclidine (PCP). We reverse.
Although the motions judge made no specific findings of fact, our review of the transcript leads us to conclude that the judge accepted as true the testimony of Officer Tochtermann, the only witness to appear at the suppression hearing.
The facts may be stated briefly. Around 1:15 a. m. on July 14, 1980, appellee and a female companion were sitting in a car. Police Officer Tochtermann approached the car intending to advise the driver to move the car since it was blocking an alleyway. As he approached, he smelled the aroma of marijuana. He also observed the female quickly extinguish a hand-rolled cigarette. Investigating further, he went around to the driver's side and asked appellee for his license and registration. As appellee sought to produce the documents, the officer flashed his flashlight into the car as a safety precaution. He spotted a tinfoil package, wrapped in a manner in which PCP is packaged, on the floor of the car between appellee's legs. Appellee was ordered out of the car and the tinfoil package was retrieved. After examining the package as to odor, the officer "realized" it was PCP* and placed appellee under arrest. A search incident to arrest uncovered five additional packages containing PCP in appellee's front left pocket.
The government contends that the judge erred as a matter of law in ruling that the police officer did not possess the requisite experience to give him probable cause to believe that the tinfoil package, which was in plain view, contained PCP. D.C.Code 1973, § 17-305. The judge relied in part on a statement by the officer, in response to a question posed by the judge, that prior to examining the tinfoil package he "suspected" that it contained PCP. In the judge's opinion the officer's suspicion did not rise to the level of probable cause.
The record reveals that the officer had a total of five years experience as a police officer — two years with the Metropolitan Police Department and three years with the Baltimore Police Department. As part of his Baltimore police training he participated in a one week drug enforcement seminar which included training in how street drugs are packaged. The officer estimated that he had participated in more than 50 drug arrests.
While arrest on mere suspicion is prohibited, "suspicion on reasonable grounds is not mere suspicion." Bell v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 386, 254 F.2d 82, 85, cert. denied, 358...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minnick v. US, 90-CF-39.
...probable cause to search an automobile based, at least in part, on an officer's recognition of the smell of drugs. United States v. Bolden, 429 A.2d 185 (D.C.App.1981) (police officer smelled marijuana and saw tinfoil packets which in his experience were used to package PCP); Thompson v. Un......
-
Gilliam v. United States, s. 08–CF–475
...on an officer's recognition of the smell of drugs.” Minnick v. United States, 607 A.2d 519, 525 (D.C.1992) (citing United States v. Bolden, 429 A.2d 185 (D.C.App.1981)). Appellant takes no issue with this principle. He contends, however, that the trial court erred in crediting Officer Peake......
-
United States v. McCarthy, 81-746.
...process"). 4. See Price v. United States, D.C.App., 429 A.2d 514, 516 (1981) (manila "coin" envelope); United States v. Bolden, D.C.App., 429 A.2d 185, 186 (1981) (per curiam) (tinfoil packet); United States v. Russell, 211 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 32-33, 655 F.2d 1261, 1262-63 (1981) (clear packag......
-
Coles v. US
...nonetheless confirm that he had probable cause to believe he had witnessed an exchange of drugs for money. See, e.g., United States v. Bolden, 429 A.2d 185, 186 (D.C. 1981); Tobias v. United States, 375 A.2d 491, 492-94 (D.C.1977); Munn v. United States, 283 A.2d 28, 30-31 (D.C.1971); Peter......