United States v. Miles

• Decision Date: 16 July 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-1748.,72-1748.
• Citation: 480 F.2d 1217
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Vernon MILES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

480 F.2d 1217 (1973)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Vernon MILES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-1748.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 16, 1973.

E. Richard Walker, Fed. Public Defender (argued), Sacramento, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Bruce Babcock, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Dwayne Keyes, U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BROWNING and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS,^* District Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal of a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) for possession of an unregistered firearm. The sole issue here, as in the district court, is the lawfulness of the search of appellant's suitcase that disclosed the illegal weapon.

Appellant was employed as a driver's helper on a United Van Lines moving van. Barton Trevillian was the driver, and in charge. Trevillian drove the van to the Sierra Army Depot, Hurlong, California, to pick up a load of household goods. He drove to the customer's residence, located in an unrestricted area of the Army base. Trevillian, appellant, and another helper began loading the van. Before the packing was completed, Trevillian drove the van to a truck scale to have it weighed, leaving appellant and the second helper at the residence, packing household goods. The truck scale was located some 20 blocks away within a restricted area of the base containing an ammunition dump. All commercial vehicles entering this area were searched by Army security guards pursuant to Army Regulations 210-10(1-15). A driver who did not wish his vehicle searched could leave; he was simply denied access to the restricted area. A security guard told Trevillian that the van would have to be searched before it could be taken into the restricted area. Trevillian responded, "Look it over all you want." In the course of the inspection that followed, the guard opened the door to a small compartment on the passenger side of the van and saw a suitcase. He asked Trevillian to open the suitcase; Trevillian did so. The guard reached into the suitcase and discovered a sawed-off shotgun. Trevillian told the guard that the suitcase belonged to appellant. Trevillian testified this occurred before he opened the suitcase; the guard testified it occurred after the gun was discovered.

The administrative search involved here is indistinguishable from the inspection for weapons and explosives of the persons and carry-on baggage of passengers seeking to board commercial aircraft approved in United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973), the inspection for plant pests and disease of air passengers and their luggage approved in United States v. Schafer, 461 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1972), and the inspection for weapons and explosives of briefcases and packages carried into federal buildings approved in Downing v. Kunzig, 454 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1972).

It was held in each of these cases that the public interest in preventing the introduction of dangerous material into the particular area involved was sufficiently strong to make it reasonable...