United States v. Sokolow
| Decision Date | 28 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1135 Summary Calendar.,71-1135 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 450 F.2d 324 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles H. SOKOLOW, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Louis Vernell, Miami Beach, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Richard A. Hauser, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
:
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on a jury verdict finding Sokolow guilty of the unlawful receipt and possession of stolen property in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 659. We reverse.
A police officer, acting upon reliable information that cigarettes had been stolen, followed a suspect's automobile which eventually backed up to Sokolow's garage. While arresting the suspect, the officer saw a number of air conditioning units stacked in the garage. The officer questioned Sokolow concerning the ownership of the equipment. In the course of this investigation, the officer entered the garage and took serial numbers from the units without a search warrant. This information established that the air conditioners were stolen property, and Sokolow was arrested. Prior to trial, Sokolow moved to suppress the evidence pertaining to the serial numbers and all evidence obtained as a result of that seizure as the fruit of a warrantless search in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The motion was denied.
A search conducted outside the judicial process, i. e., without a warrant, is per se unreasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Katz v. United States, 1967, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576. While this rule is subject to limited and well-defined exceptions that may justify a warrantless search and seizure, "the exceptions are `jealously and carefully drawn,' and there must be `a showing by those who seek exemption * * * that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.'" Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 1971, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 June 22, 1971.
The Government first contends that the search and seizure of the serial numbers was valid based upon probable cause. Manifestly, a showing of probable cause is required for the granting of a warrant, but "* * * no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search and seizure absent `exigent circumstances'". Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 468, 91 S.Ct. at 2039. Here there were simply no exigent circumstances. The nature of the stolen property was not such that it could be easily disposed of and other agents were maintaining surveillance on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Matthews
...however, does not apply to sealed packages the appearance of which is not indicative of their illicit contents. United States v. Sokolow, 450 F.2d 324 (CA5 1971); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969) (concurring opinion of Stewart, Brennan, and White, JJ.);......
-
United States v. Soriano
...to the general requirement that searches and seizures must be predicated upon a warrant issued on probable cause. . . ."); United States v. Sokolow, 450 F.2d 324, 325 (CA5 1971, Judges Gewin, Goldberg & Dyer) ("A search conducted outside the judicial process . . . is per se unreasonable . .......
-
United States v. Colbert
...need for it."\' (Footnotes omitted.) 448 F.2d at 1211 quoting 403 U.S. at 454, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d at 576. In United States v. Sokolow, 450 F.2d 324 (5th Cir. 1971) and United States v. Drew, 451 F.2d 230 (5 Cir. 1971), we have again recognized the stringent burden upon the government......
-
Brown v. State
...contraband. The seizure was held to be unconstitutional. See also Pendleton v. Nelson, 404 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1968); United States v. Sokolow, 450 F.2d 324 (5th Cir. 1971). The evidence should have been suppressed as unconstitutionally seized. In view of our disposition of the case on Four......