United States v. William Elmer Mitchell

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. Not only do I find the majority’s conclusion unacceptable, I am also disturbed over the reasoning by which that conclusion is reached.

The Supreme Court has long struggled to define the power of the police to search vehicles. See, e. g., Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 992 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 , 84 S.Ct. 881 , 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). 1 In its attempt, the Court has always undertaken to balance the interests of the police with those of the drivers whose automobiles are searched. As I read the majority opinion, it does not meet our Fourth Amendment problem with engagement into the balancing process required of us. Consequently, I submit that it sanctions a practice that circumvents the Supreme Court’s decisions and unnecessarily upsets the desired balance. In carefully articulating those rules which limit the scope of vehicle searches, the Supreme Court has, I think, endeavored to reconcile the legitimate interests of society as…

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 , the United States appeals from an order suppressing evidence. At issue is the admissibility of an automatic pistol found in Mitchell’s automobile. The district court suppressed the weapon on the ground that it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finding no unreasonable search or seizure, we reverse.

Mitchell was arrested in Billings, Montana for speeding in the early morning hours of February 5, 1971. He was driving an out-of-state car. At the time he was on parole from a felony conviction, under the supervision of the federal probation office in Santa Ana, California. Because he was unable to make bond, he was confined in the city jail to await appearance in municipal court.

Pursuant to standard police procedure, a patrolman was instructed by his superior to take Mitchell’s car to the city impounding lot some distance from the police station. After he had entered the car and while driving it to the lot, the officer observed a partially opened sample case on the floor in front of the passenger side of the front seat. He also saw several valuable watches in plastic cases on the front seat, and apparently on the floor around the sample…

458 F.2d 960 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William Elmer MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellee. No. 71-1868. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 11, 1972. Eugene A. Lalonde, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Otis L. Packwood, U. S. Atty., Billings, Mont., for plaintiff-appellant. John L. Adams, Jr. (argued), Billings, Mont., for defendant-appellee. Before ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and POWELL, District Judge. * EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: 1 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731 , the United States appeals from an order suppressing evidence. At issue is the admissibility of an automatic pistol found in Mitchell's automobile. The district court suppressed the weapon on the ground that it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finding no unreasonable search or seizure, we reverse. 2 Mitchell was arrested in Billings, Montana for speeding in the early morning hours of February 5, 1971. He was driving an out-of-state car. At the time he was on parole from a felony conviction, under the supervision of the federal probation office in Santa Ana, California. Because he was unable to make bond, he was confined in the city jail to await appearance in…