United States v. Javier Alvaro Medina-Verdugo, United States of America v. Lanita Harriet Williams, United States of America v. Charles Douglas Adams

These consolidated appeals from convictions of persons who participated in a drug transaction raise questions concerning the search of a purse carried by one participant and a later search of luggage contained in an automobile. We affirm the conviction resulting from the search of the purse because the appellant has no standing to object to it. We are required by Supreme Court authority, however, to reverse the conviction resulting from the search of the luggage.

All appellants were convicted for both conspiracy and substantive offenses for possession and distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. In addition, appellant Medina-Verdugo was convicted for conspiracy and substantive offenses relating to illegal importation of her *651 oin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 ,960, and 963.

I

DEA agents in central California began surveillance of appellants Adams and Williams on receipt of a tip that they were about to engage in a narcotics transaction. A cheek showed that Williams had a previous narcotics arrest. Under surveillance, the suspects registered at a motel in El Centro, California, Adams using a fictitious name “L. Cain.” After Williams had made…

concurring:

I join in the opinion of Judge Kennedy. As that opinion makes clear, the result we reach is required by our reading of the applicable Supreme Court authorities.

No doubt law enforcement efforts would be less hampered were the probable cause sufficient to justify a seizure without a warrant of a closed receptacle, such as a suitcase, valise, attache case, or gym bag, also considered sufficient to support its search without a warrant on the spot when the probable cause to seize arises in connection with an investigatory stop of an automobile which itself was based either on probable cause or founded suspicion. This does not appear to be the law, however.

Under what we perceive to be the law, the officers, after stopping Adams and Williams and not observing any contraband in plain view, either should have let them go, arrested them and brought them back to either Imperial or El Centro and obtained a *654 warrant to search the car and any closed receptacles, or held them at the point at which they were stopped until a warrant to search was obtained pursuant to Rule 41(c)(2), F.R.Crim.P. The first course would avoid all constitutional problems; the same cannot be said…

637 F.2d 649 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Alvaro MEDINA-VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lanita Harriet WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Douglas ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 79-1042, 79-1309 and 79-1314. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 4, 1979. Decided Oct. 23, 1980. Rehearing Denied February 20, 1981. Frank T. Vecchione, John H. Tannenberg, San Diego, Cal., argued for defendants-appellants; Jerrold Ladar, San Francisco, Cal., on brief. John J. Robinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., argued for plaintiff-appellee United States; Michael H. Walsh, U.S. Atty., John J. Robinson, Eve Bermingham, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Diego, Cal., on brief. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before SNEED and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * District Judge. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge: 1 These consolidated appeals from convictions of persons who participated in a drug transaction raise questions concerning the search of a purse carried by one participant and a later search of…