United States v. Randall G. Prim

698 F.2d 972 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randall G. PRIM, Defendant-Appellant. No. 81-1149. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 16, 1981. Decided Feb. 7, 1983. Brook Hart, Hart & Wolff, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant-appellant. Emilia M. DeMeo, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Before HUG and ALARCON, Circuit Judges, and TAKASUGI, * District Judge. TAKASUGI, District Judge: Defendant Randall G. Prim appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 844 . He challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. FACTS On October 7, 1980, at approximately 9:00 a.m., defendant arrived at the Portland International Airport in Portland, Oregon and purchased, with cash, a one-way ticket to Hilo, Hawaii, via Honolulu, scheduled for departure at 9:30 a.m. that date. He checked in a blue suitcase and hand-carried a black briefcase. Upon defendant's arrival at the airport, he was observed by Patrolman Battaglia of the Port Authority of Portland Police Department and Sergeant Wells of the…

Defendant Randall G. Prim appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 . He challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

FACTS

On October 7,1980, at approximately 9:00 a.m., defendant arrived at the Portland International Airport in Portland, Oregon and purchased, with cash, a one-way ticket to Hilo, Hawaii, via Honolulu, scheduled for departure at 9:30 a.m. that date. He checked in a blue suitcase and hand-carried a black briefcase. Upon defendant’s arrival at the airport, he was observed by Patrolman Battaglia of the Port Authority of Portland Police Department and Sergeant Wells of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Department. Battaglia became suspicious of defendant because of the way he looked around. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) Special Agent Gutensohn was contacted and he placed defendant under surveillance for approximately two hours until defendant’s delayed flight finally boarded at approximately 11:00 a.m. During his surveillance, he noticed defendant’s nervous movements, such as looking around every 15 yards and changing directions in walking. After defendant’s departure, Gutensohn checked with NADDIS, a…

concurring:

I concur in the result, for one of the reasons expressed by Judge Takasugi:

I find it unnecessary to examine the more ambiguous earlier events or the later events which were obviously tainted by the illegal detention.

The district court and the dissent characterize the detention as a valid arrest because of the outstanding Oregon arrest warrant for nonsupport. I disagree. The DEA agents who arrested Prim did not have federal statutory authority to arrest on state charges. See 21 U.S.C. § 878 . Like other special federal law enforcement officers, DEA “agents are not general guardians of the public peace, as are state or local police. Their, powers to search places and to search and arrest persons are limited by statute.” United States v. Diamond, 471 F.2d 771, 773 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 932 , 93 S.Ct. 2751 , 37 L.Ed.2d 161 (1973); see also United States v. Watson,. 423 U.S. 411, 415-16 , 96 S.Ct. 820, 823 , 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) (postal inspectors); United States v. Harrington, 681 F.2d 612, 613 (9th Cir.1982) (Customs Service); United States v. Soto-Soto, 598 F.2d 545, 549 (9th Cir.1979) (FBI agents); United States v. Thompson, 475 F.2d 1359, 1362-63…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

I would affirm the judgment.

*979 The district court found that no fourth amendment violation occurred at the time of the detention, arrest, and search of Prim based, inter alia, on the fact that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

The evidence of the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant was uncontradicted. No question was raised below as to the validity of the warrant. Specifically, no issue of law or fact was presented to the district court as to whether Special Agent Snyder had the authority to make an arrest pursuant to the outstanding warrant.

It is also undisputed that under Hawaiian law Special Agent Snyder and Honolulu Police Officer Abe were authorized to arrest Prim based on the outstanding Oregon warrant of arrest.

Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 832-14 provides as follows:

No question has been raised as to the legal meaning of the term “reasonable information” or whether the facts presented to the district court meet this standard. I believe that a proper construction of the Hawaii statute consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment would be to equate “reasonable information” with probable cause. No…