United States v. Sanders, 72-3608 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-3608 Summary Calendar.,72-3608 Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Willie SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Clayte Binion, III, Fort Worth, Tex., court-appointed, for defendant-appellant.
Frank D. McCown, U. S. Atty., W. E. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
The sole question in this appeal is whether Appellant's Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by admission into evidence against him a palmprint taken while he was legally in the custody of law enforcement officers on another matter, but after he had requested counsel before further questioning on this matter. We think not and therefore affirm the lower court's decision.
The record reveals, and Appellant admits, that he was legally in the custody of law enforcement officials stemming from arrest on another unrelated matter. It is undisputed, then, that the custodial officers were well within their authority, and not without Appellant's rights, to require that he submit to fingerprinting independent of the presence or absence of warnings to accused of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. United States v. Gibson, 5 Cir., 1971, 444 F.2d 275. Neither can it be argued that the Fourth Amendment erected any obstacle to the taking Appellant's fingerprint exemplars under the facts present here. The obtaining of physical evidence from a person involved a potential Fourth Amendment violation at two different levels—the "seizure" of the "person" necessary to bring him into contact with government agents and the subsequent search for and seizure of the evidence. United States v. Dionisio, 1973, 410 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed. 67. Here the fact Appellant was legally under arrest at the time his palmprint exemplar was taken removes the first level of potential Fourth Amendment infringement. As for the second level, the Supreme Court noted in Davis v. Mississippi, 1969, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676, that while the seizure of the person is clearly subject to Fourth Amendment "reasonableness", the taking of physical evidence in the nature of fingerprinting, or as here palmprints, "involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search."
Appellant, upon being apprised of his constitutional rights, properly invoked his Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present before further questioning. The record shows that the interrogation ceased at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Murphy
...taking of fingerprints without full probable cause (United States v. Sechrist (7th Cir.1981) 640 F.2d 81, 86; United States v. Sanders (5th Cir.1973) 477 F.2d 112, 113), and required fingerprinting in connection with an application for a business license (Brown v. Brannon (M.D.N.C.1975) 399......
-
U.S. v. Woods
...no constitutional rights. See United States v. Rogers, 475 F.2d 821 (7th Cir. 1973) (court-ordered submission); United States v. Sanders, 477 F.2d 112 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 870, 94 S.Ct. 88, 38 L.Ed.2d 88 (1973) (legally in custody on another D. Informal "Aural Show Ups." Appel......
-
U.S. v. Franks
...violates no constitutional right. See United States v. Rogers, 475 F.2d 821 (7th Cir. 1973) (court-ordered submission); United States v. Sanders, 477 F.2d 112 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 870, 94 S.Ct. 88, 38 L.Ed.2d 88 (1973) (legally in custody on another matter). We also reject Mit......
-
United States v. Love
...the futile advice not to give the sample.\' Lewis v. United States, 1967, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 269, 382 F.2d 817, 819." United States v. Sanders, 477 F.2d 112 (5th Cir., 1973). The reasoning of Sanders was re-enforced by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Cupp v. Murphy, "The inquiry does n......