United States v. Pannell, 4963.
| Citation | 256 A.2d 925 |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 4963.,4963. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Norman PANNELL, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
John G. Gill, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom `Thomas A. Flannery, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Frederick G. Watts, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellant. Roger E. Zuckerman, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellant.
John A. Shorter, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and KERN and GALLAGHER, Associate Judges.
The Government appeals1 from an order entered by the trial court prior to trial suppressing narcotics paraphernalia seized from appellee's automobile on the parking lot of a police precinct station after he had been arrested and taken therefor booking on the charge of driving without a valid permit. The Government seeks to justify the search of the automobile on the ground that an inventory of its contents was necessary for the protection of appellee after the police had impounded it and to justify the seizure of the narcotics paraphernalia from the car on the ground that a syringe was in plain sight of the officer after he had entered the automobile to take the inventory.
The trial court made no findings of fact. The record shows the following. At two-thirty in the afternoon, two plain-clothes officers stopped appellee on suspicion that he was driving a stolen automobile. They radioed headquarters about the car and requested his registration card and driver's permit while awaiting a reply. The car turned out to be registered to appellee but in the meantime appellee admitted to them that he had no driver's permit. Thereupon, the officers arrested appellee for driving without a permit. One officer rode with appellee in his car five blocks to police precinct No. 13 and ordered him to park on the precinct lot.2 No parking space was available on the street.
At the precinct one of the arresting officers learned that appellee's permit had been revoked for operating a vehicle under the influence of narcotics. Thereafter, he instructed his partner to impound appellee's car and inventory its contents. The officer's explanation in his testimony for impounding appellee's car was that appellee could not drive it because he had no permit and that he had no one available to come to the precinct to drive it away "within a reasonable time". Appellee had advised the officer, according to the latter's testimony, that there was no one he could "call or contact immediately" to come and get the car but "that after someone got off work" the car could be taken away. The inventory was taken at 3:00 or 3:15 p. in. before the police had booked appellee on the traffic charge. Appellee could not post bond and obtain his release until the booking process was completed.
The police officer making the inventory testified that he searched the entire car and saw the tip of a syringe sticking out from under the mat on the floor of the front seat next to the "hump". When the officer rolled back the mat he discovered narcotics paraphernalia. Appellee was charged with possessing narcotics paraphernalia and operating a motor vehicle after revocation of his permit and released on bond sometime after 4 p. m.
The Constitution forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.3 We are constrained by the particular facts here to conclude that the search of appellee's car was not reasonable and the trial court's order must be affirmed.
The Government argues that after it impounded appellee's car it had a duty to inventory the contents for the protection of appellee. See Cotton v. United States, 371 F.2d 385, 392 (9th Cir. 1967). We recognize the need of the Government to protect by proper inventory-taking both the property of those arrested and itself against future claims for property loss and damage by those taken into custody. Nevertheless, the police must first have had a lawful basis for acquiring custody of appellee's auto before they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Slockbower
...Dixon v. State, 23 Md.App. 19, 327 A.2d 516 (Ct.Sp.App.1974); State v. Jewell, 338 So.2d 633 (La.Sup.Ct.1976); United States v. Pannell, 256 A.2d 925 (D.C.Ct.App.1969). Federal decisions in general accord are United States v. Lawson, 487 F.2d 468 (8 Cir. 1973); United States v. Edwards, 554......
-
Miller v. State
...Superior Court, 94 Cal.Rptr. 412, 4 Cal.3d 699, 484 P.2d 84 (1971); Arrington v. United States, 382 A.2d 14 (D.C.1978); United States v. Pannell, 256 A.2d 925 (D.C.1969); State v. Boster, 217 Kan. 618, 539 P.2d 294 (1975); State v. Rome, 354 So.2d 504 (La.1978); State v. Sawyer, 174 Mont. 5......
-
Duncan v. State
...of Placer, 268 Cal.App.2d 127, 73 Cal.Rptr. 793 (1968); Pigford v. United States, 273 A.2d 837 (D.C.Ct.App.1971); United States v. Pannell, 256 A.2d 925 (D.C.Ct.App.1969); Williams v. United States, 170 A.2d 233 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App.1961); State v. Boster, 217 Kan. 618, 539 P.2d 294 (1975); Stat......
-
State v. Jones
...the accused's arrest, was not conducted pursuant to the lawful limitations prescribed v. Cooper, and Harris, supra: United States v. Pannell, 256 A.2d 925 (D.C.Ct.App.1969); Pigford v. United States, 273 A.2d 837 (D.C.App.1971); (5) cases which invalidate a search predicated upon an invento......