United States v. Jones

• Decision Date: 24 May 1960
• Docket Number: No. 37161.,37161.
• Citation: 184 F. Supp. 328
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Edward JONES and Warren Lloyd Rogers, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

184 F. Supp. 328

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Edward JONES and Warren Lloyd Rogers, Defendants.

No. 37161.

United States District Court N. D. California, S. D.

May 24, 1960.

Lynn Gillard, U. S. Atty., and John Kaplan, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for the United States.

Allen E. Anderson and David B. Birenbaum, of Birenbaum, Anderson & McClelland, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Jones and Rogers.

SWEIGERT, District Judge.

Defendant Rogers, a twenty-three year old United States Army private first class, has been indicted in this district for violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, which defines as a crime the unlawful importation of narcotics into the United States, and includes therein any conspiracy committed incidental thereto.

Relating to this indictment, defendant has by petition moved this Court to suppress certain statements and to quash a warrant for his arrest, issued on the basis thereof, and upon oral hearing of such motions, has moved as well to quash the indictment.

From the evidence introduced at the hearing on May 4, 1960, the Court finds the facts to be substantially as follows:

On March 9, 1960, about noon, defendant Rogers, returning from Korea aboard the United States Army Transport Mitchell, was halted as he was debarking at the Oakland Army Terminal by United States Customs Officers, acting on information wired to the Army from Korea, and relayed to Customs, to the effect that two soldiers aboard the vessel—one Jones and one Rogers—were in possession of heroin, and that Jones was to deliver it to Rogers on arrival at Oakland.

The Customs officers were assisted at the time by an Army CID officer who identified defendant Rogers as he debarked. Thereupon, the Customs officers, one of whom had taken defendant by the elbow at the gangplank, took defendant's baggage from him, and escorted him to a United States Customs vehicle, and drove him to Military Police Headquarters at Oakland Army Terminal, approximately one-half mile away, for the purpose of searching his baggage and his person.

Defendant's query as to the reason for his detention was answered to the effect that he was suspected of possessing unlawfully imported narcotics and that his detention was for the purpose of search.

Prior to the search, the Army CID officer read defendant Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S. C.A. § 831, concerning the right of defendant to refrain from making statements self-incriminatory in nature and the possible use of any such statements against him. Likewise, a Customs officer informed defendant of his similar right under the Fifth Amendment, and also of his right to counsel. To this defendant replied something to the effect that he did not need the services of counsel, since he had not done anything.

The search of defendant's baggage disclosed a paper containing a reference to Jones, but otherwise revealed nothing. A subsequent strip search of defendant's person was also unrevealing. The defendant acquiesced in the search, admitted he knew Jones, but disclaimed any involvement with narcotics.

After a questioning period of about one hour and a half, the Army CID officer suggested a lie detector test. Defendant acquiesced, and was taken by Customs automobile, accompanied by both Customs officers and the Army CID officer, to the San Francisco Presidio where such a test was given by United States Army personnel.

After the lie detector test, defendant was returned to the Oakland Terminal. Upon arrival there, about 6 P.M., the Customs officers departed, but the Army CID officer, defendant's military superior, arranged for defendant's dinner after regular hours, and told him to await further questioning. This officer did again question defendant for about one-half hour in the evning, and merely told him to remain on the Terminal base. The defendant was not otherwise restrained of his liberty.

The following morning, March 10th, the Army CID officer visited the defendant at his billet, told him to remain in the general area to be available for the further questions which followed between the two for about one-half hour in the early afternoon. No Customs agents were present on this day.

On March 11th, pursuant to new information received from Japan, concerning the supplier of the heroin, one Balthazar, Customs agents came to the base to interrogate defendant further. After having consented to answer further questions, and having once again been advised of his Fifth Amendment rights, the defendant made oral statements admitting that, prior to his departure from the Orient, he had introduced Jones to Balthazar. According to the testimony of defendant and others, this oral statement, given on March 11th, was substantially the same as the written statement ultimately signed by defendant on March 14th (Exhibit 6 herein). A complaint was sworn out and a warrant issued, and on March 15th defendant was arrested on the pending charge.

At no time prior to the service of the arrest warrant upon the defendant did any investigating officer indicate that the defendant was under arrest. In fact, the record discloses that the Customs officers had no intention to arrest defendant when they took him to be searched, nor did the Army CID officer when he restricted him to the confines of the base to facilitate investigation.

The detention by Customs officers was for the purpose of search, and the detention by military authorities was for the purpose of investigation.

The question presented is whether such detentions constitute an "arrest" within the meaning of Rule 5(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., and whether the defendant's statements, oral and written, are inadmissible into evidence because rendered during a period of unlawful detention, under the rule of Mallory v. United States, 1957, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479; Upshaw v. United States, 1948, 335 U.S. 410, 69 S.Ct. 170, 93 L.Ed. 100; McNabb v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819.

These cases establish the rule that detention of a person is unlawful to the extent that officers, making an arrest, fail to take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available United States Commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the United States, as provided by Rule 5(a), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; that delay is unnecessary if more than the interval between arrest and the ordinary administrative steps required to bring the suspect before the nearest available magistrate elapses; that although circumstances may justify a brief delay between arrest and arraignment, as for instance, where the story volunteered by the accused is susceptible of quick verification through third persons, the delay must not be of a nature to give opportunity for the extraction of a confession; that such statements, made during a period of illegal detention due to failure promptly to carry a prisoner before a committing magistrate, are inadmissible in evidence, regardless of whether they are the result of torture, physical or psychological. See, generally, Mallory, supra; Upshaw, supra; McNabb, supra.

So far as the actions of the United States Customs officials are concerned, their search and related inquiries were clearly within the lawful powers of Customs authorities. The source of such authority, as was exercised by the Customs officers, is Title 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 482, 1582. These sections give broad power of detention for search to prevent the importation of noxious and odious goods and substances into the country. Courts interpreting these statutory provisions have traditionally accorded Customs officials reasonably wide latitude to enforce United States Customs laws and regulations effectively. See the very able opinion of Judge Oliver Carter of this Court in United States v. Yee Ngee How, D.C.Cal.1952, 105 F.Supp. 517.

We conclude that defendant's detention incidental to the Customs search did not constitute an arrest or unlawful detention. This conclusion does not ignore the fact that defendant was taken approximately one-half mile from the pier for the purpose of the search. A proper search could not have been performed on the pier itself, but only in the privacy which a room nearby the pier affords. The lack of convenient and immediate searching facilities on the pier itself, should not invalidate a lawful regulatory measure, nor frustrate the objective of our Customs laws.

At the end of the search, and the incidental questioning, the power of the Customs officials terminated. Defendant's contacts with Customs authorities after this time, and up to the moment of his arrest by them, were insignificant in nature (e. g., the transportation service afforded defendant and the Army CID officer from the Oakland Army Terminal to the San Francisco Presidio and back again on March 9th) or were with the consent of the defendant (e. g., the brief questioning of defendant on March 11th). These circumstances do not amount to unlawful detention...