United States v. Henry Wayne Friesen

545 F.2d 672 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Wayne FRIESEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 75-1799. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 12, 1976. 1 Thomas Schneiger (argued), Portland, Ore., for defendant-appellant. 2 Bill Youngman, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Portland, Ore., for plaintiff-appellee. 3 Before HUFSTEDLER and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and REAL, * District Judge. REAL, District Judge: 4 Appellant was arrested by Oregon State Police upon an outstanding arrest warrant. After his arrest he was permitted to gather his belongings from his motel room into two suitcases. Appellant and his luggage were then transported to the police station where his personal property including the property in his suitcases was inventoried. 1 5 Appellant was tried and convicted of interstate transportation of a stolen aircraft. He complains of the failure of the trial court to suppress those items used as evidence which were obtained as a result of the inventory of his suitcases. 6 The United States Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue. Obliquely, the case of Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1966), upheld the search…

Appellant was arrested by Oregon State Police upon an outstanding arrest warrant. After his arrest he was permitted to gather his belongings from his motel room into two suitcases. Appellant and his luggage were then transported to the police station where his personal property — including the property in his suitcases — was inventoried.

Appellant was tried and convicted of interstate transportation of a stolen aircraft. He complains of the failure of the trial court to suppress those items used as evidence which were obtained as a result of the inventory of his suitcases.

The United States Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue. Obliquely, the case of Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1966), upheld the search without a warrant of an auto being held pending a civil forfeiture action. In preserving its position in Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 , 84 S.Ct. 881 , 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1914), the Court does say:

386 U.S. at 59 , 87 S.Ct. at 790 .

What appears clear from reading Cooper (supra) and Preston (supra) is that searches are to be measured for their reasonableness on the factual context in which the trier of fact must apply…

(concurring specially).

I concur in the result following the teaching of South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 .