United States v. Saundra Prescott

In this case we decide two principal questions. One is whether, when the police have probable cause to believe (a) that a person has committed a felony and (b) that he is in a particular house, they may forcibly enter and search for and seize him without first obtaining a warrant, in the absence of exigent circumstances. The second is whether, and if so to what extent, a refusal by the occupant of a house to admit the police, when they do not have a warrant, may be used against the occupant, when she is charged with assisting a federal offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 , which defines an accessory after the fact. Our answer to the first question is that a warrant must be obtained. Our answer to the second question is that the refusal may not be used.

I. FACTS

In early 1977, federal agents investigating a mail fraud scheme concluded that one Duvernay was using stolen credit cards to obtain merchandise by mail. On January 13,1977, Postal Inspector Russell supervised a controlled delivery to 551 Grove Street, San Francisco, one of several addresses employed by Duvernay, of three parcels containing clothing and ‘electronic…

I concur in the court’s opinion with the exception of Part IV from which I respectfully dissent.

Part IV enunciates a novel rule of constitutional proportions drawn primarily from precedents applicable to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and here made an appendage to the Fourth Amendment immunity from unreasonable search and seizure. The functionally significant question posed by the majority’s novel rule is, “Must evidence of the exercise of the Fourth Amendment right to resist a search without a warrant be excluded at the option of a defendant charged with assisting a federal offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 , when the search was based on exigent circumstances and not in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.” The majority answer yes as a matter of constitutional law. I respectfully dissent because I think the answer should be no.

*1354 I.

The Exercise Of Constitutional Rights Need Not Be Without Costs.

The majority has not framed the issue as precisely as I have. To them admission of the evidence of a refusal to admit the police would be the equivalent of a prosecutor commenting on…

581 F.2d 1343 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Saundra PRESCOTT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 77-2574. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 14, 1978. Michael H. Weiss, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Lawrence Edelman, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before DUNIWAY, CUMMINGS, * and SNEED, Circuit Judges. DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge: 1 In this case we decide two principal questions. One is whether, when the police have probable cause to believe (a) that a person has committed a felony and (b) that he is in a particular house, they may forcibly enter and search for and seize him without first obtaining a warrant, in the absence of exigent circumstances. The second is whether, and if so to what extent, a refusal by the occupant of a house to admit the police, when they do not have a warrant, may be used against the occupant, when she is charged with assisting a federal offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3 , which defines an accessory after the fact. Our answer to the first…