Williams v. United States
| Decision Date | 28 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2675.,2675. |
| Citation | 170 A.2d 233 |
| Parties | David A. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
John R. Schmertz, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges, and CAYTON (Chief Judge, Retired) sitting by designation under Code, § 11-776(b).
This is an appeal from a conviction for carrying an unlicensed pistol. Code 1951, § 22-3204 (Supp. VIII). Williams complains that the District police found and removed a weapon from his automobile in the course of an unreasonable search and seizure. On this constitutional ground he challenges the denial of his motion to suppress the gun as evidence at trial.
At approximately three o'clock one morning in April 1960 appellant was stopped in the District for driving 40 miles per hour in a 30-mile zone. He was arrested and ordered to follow the officers to the police precinct nearby. Parking the automobile in front of the station, he accompanied the officers inside where he was booked for speeding and told that he would have to post ten dollars collateral to obtain his release. Not having the money available, appellant had one of the officers telephone his wife; when reached, she told the officers she did not have the money but would try to get it.
With appellant in custody, the police next took steps to impound his automobile. According to the statement of proceedings and evidence, Without a search warrant but pursuant to Metropolitan Police Department General Order No. 10, Series 1958,1 the police examined the interior of the vehicle and discovered a loaded pistol lodged under the front seat. When it was learned that appellant did not have a license for the weapon, an information was drawn charging him with this offense.
This case bears a close factual similarity to Travers v. United States, D.C.Mun.App. 1958, 144 A.2d 889, where we reversed a conviction for possession of a blackjack, condemning the search and seizure which uncovered the weapon as not properly incident to an arrest for speeding. The government does not here repeat the same argument — that the search was valid as incident to appellant's arrest — but rather seeks to distinguish this case with the justification that the examination and inventory procedure authorized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State
...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); State v. Singleton, 9 Wash.App. 327, 511 P.2d 1396 (1973).6 In view ......
-
Wright v. State
...unattended or its driver incapacitated to provide for its custody or removal. Las Vegas City Code § 10--21--10:(A) (1960).In Williams v. United States, 170 A.2d 233 (D.C.A.pp.1961), defendant legally parked his car in front of the police station after he was arrested for speeding and ordere......
-
State v. Singleton
...as evidence, unless there first be a lawful arrest. Miller v. State, 137 So.2d 21 (Fla.App.1962). Also, in Williams v. United States, 170 A.2d 233 (D.C.Mun.App.1961), the court refused to permit evidence of crime discovered during the taking of the inventory to be used in evidence following......
-
St. Clair v. State
...and People v. Menzi, 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738 (1963), aff. 21 A.D.2d 57, 248 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1964). Cf. Williams v. United States, 170 A.2d 233 (D.C.Mun.App.1961). In People v. Ortiz, 147 Cal.App.2d 248, 305 P.2d 145 (1956), the defendant, under arrest for 'drunk auto' was incarcerate......