If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

National Criminal Justice Reference Service ------~~~------I, I nCJrs I i I This microfiche was produced from documents received for

; inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise l control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, ! ' i the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on i this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality...... , A~~~~_ .-=.::...... ::~:..:.....;;...:...... ::;~..:..:.:--::...::..:;:.:'}~ _"~.,:..-.",. '~4'~"',', I

! :; ~1112.8 111112.5 1.0 3 2 I~ 11111. . 2.2 ~ Lll ~ IILI .~ 125 16 11111 . 11111,·4 11111 . i ' U.S. Department of Justice !' ,-\ I National Institute of Justice " This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stat?d in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice, MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A Permission to reproduce this ••' 'IaI':!!liI6!!!d material has been granted by Public Domain IJ FBI, OS Dept. of Justice to the National Criminal Justice Ref2rence Service (NCJRS). "~ _,~._ " ' .,- ,,'- - - _ -r-'- II used to create this fiche comply with" " Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ Microfilmi~g proc~du;es sion of the ~owner, the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11,504.

Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official OATE FiLMEOl position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. ~ 'f 2/23/82 ~ ~ I a

,f .' f>..- ' ,j 0' , f) " · ·------~~----___~·_~~~t~~

r-I LAW ENFORCEMENT I'BIBULLETIN NOVEMBER 1981. VOLUME 50, NUl,mER 11

f.·,~ ".!'~ ~ L~_ ~CQU~3rrION~ Contents

Police History 1 Preserving Police History By George F, Maher %03:3 7' White-collar [5 Ponzi Schemes and Laundering-How Illicit Funds are Crime Acquired and Concealed :j By Vincent P. Dohe(ty and Monte E. Smith S" NZ

Crime statistics 12 1980 Crime Statistics

Point of View 16 The Police: From Slaying Dragons to Rescuing Cats By Edwin J. Delattre 20 Cooperation r , j JOint FBI/NYPD Task Forces: A Study in Cooperation t: By Kenneth P. Walton and Patrick J. Murphy yo 3 f 0 The Legal Digest [24 The Motor Vehicle Exception to the Search Warrant Requirement (Part I) qo '5 4- { By John C. Hall

32 Wanted By The FBI

N:

THE COVER: Federal Bureau of Investigation Published by the Office of Congressional and A restored 1925 Har· United States Department of Justice Public Affairs ley Davidson is driv­ Washington, D.C. 20535 Roger S. Young en by an officer Assistant Director '-"'~"'''';'--L . dressed iI' a uniform William H. Webster, Director Editor-Thomas J. Deakin I of that era. See arti- Assistant Editor-Kathryn E. Sulewski .... cleo on preserving the The Attorney General has determined that the publication Art Director-Kevin J. Mulholland of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the history of a police Writer/Editor-Karen McCarron public business required by law of the Department of department begin­ Production Manager-Jeffrey L. Summers ning on p. 1. Justice. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the Director of the Office 01 Management and Budget through December 28, 1983,

, ISSN 0014-5688 .... USPS 383-310 /0 '

1 I ,

/] \~

THE MOTOR VEHICLE EXCEPTION ___ that historically, the fourth amendment . Considering the facts, the Court TO THE SEARCH had been construed as recognizing: concluded that there was probable cover cap.:'city) and agreed to sell " ... there is a necessary difference cause to believe that whiskey was in WARRANT REQUIREMENT them a quantity of whiskey which they between a search of a store, dwell­ the car. GivE1n the probable cause, the indicated would be obtained from the ing house, or other structure in Court consideied that the mobility of (PART I) east end of Grand Rapids (in the direc­ respect of which a proper official the vehicle created an exigency mn­ tion of Detroit). For reasons not appar­ warrant readily may be obtained, and dering the securing of a search warrant By The fourth amendment to the U.S. ent in the record, the transaction was a search of a ship, motor boat, wag­ impracticable, therefore justifying the not consummated and the whiskey JOHN C. HALL Constitution prohibits "unreasonable on, or automobile. . . where it is not warrantless search. In the words of the searches and seizures." 1 Although never delivered. However, about a Court, such searches are reasonable Special Agent practicable to secure a warrant be­ there is no explicit warrant requirement week after the meeting, the agents where: Legal Counsel Division cause the vehicle can be quickly in that amendment, the U.S. Supreme spotted the Carroll automobile travel­ 1) " ... the search and seizure with­ Federal Bureau of Investigation moved out of the locality or jurisdic­ Court has held that warrantless ing the road from Grand Rapids to tion in which the warrant must be out a warrant are made upon Washington, D. C. Detroit. An attempt to follow the vehi­ searches "are per se unreasonable sought." 5 probable cause ...."7 and under the Fourth Amendment-subject cle to determine its destination was While recognizing that there is a 2) " ... it is not practicable to secure only to a few specifically established unsuccessful. "necessary difference" between the a warrant because the vehicle and well-delineated exceptions." 2 Fur­ Because of their knowledge of the search of a house and the search of an can be quickly moved ...." 8 thermore, "the burden is on those area as "one of the most active cen­ automobile, the Court emphasized that The Supreme Court's decision in Law enforcement officers of dther seeking the exemption to show the ters" for smuggling whiskey into the the difference was not enough to place Carroll marks the beginning of the than Federal jurisdiction who are need for it." 3 United States, the earlier offer of the "Carroll Rule" or what is more fre­ Special Agent Hall automobiles and other vehicles com­ interested in any legal issue discussed One of the "few carefully deline­ same two men (in the same vehicle) to quently referred today as the "auto­ in this article should consult their legal pletely beyond the protections of the ated and limited exceptions" was first sell whiskey to the agents, and the mobile exception." This article traces adviser. Some police procedures ruled fourth amendment. On the contrary, permissible under Federal recognized by the Supreme Court in earlier observation of the vehicle on the Court stated: the development of the exception from constitutional law are of questionable Carroll v. United States,4 a 1925 deci­ the same highway, the agents stopped "It would be intolerable and unrea­ its origin in Carroll to the present day legality under Statf!; law or are not sion issued in the midst of the Prohibi­ the car and searched it. Beneath the sonable if a prohibition agent were and examines the manner in which it permitted at all. tion era. The newly arrived-on-the­ upholstery of the seats they found sev­ authorized to stop every automobile has been applied by the courts. Spe­ scene automobile was a natural attrac­ eral bottles of contraband whiskey, on the chance of finding liquor.... cifically, judicial interpretation of the tion for the "bootlegger" who required some of which was introduced at trial those lawfully within the country, en­ probable cause and exigent circum­ a means of transporting his contraband to secure the convictions of Carroll and titled to use the public highways, stances standards as applied to vehi­ goods swiftly from one point to another Kiro for violation of the National Prohi­ have a right to free passage without cles will be reviewed in an effort to to meet the demands of the market bition Act. interruption or search unless there is assist the law enforcement officer in and to evade detection and capture by Carroll and Kiro appealed their known to a competent official au­ judging when this exception can be the authorities. convictions to the U.S. Supreme Court, thorized to search, probable cause used to justify a warrantless vehicle On December 15, 1921, Federal challenging the legality of the search. It for believing that their vehicles are search. Two points are worthy of em­ Prohibition agents were routinely should be noted that the agents did not carrying contraband or illegal mer­ phasis before proceeding. patrolling a road between Grand have a warrant to search the auto­ chandise."s (emphasis added) First, the commonly accepted Rapids and Detroit, Mich., when they mobile; they did not have the voluntary phrase "automobile exception" is observed an automobile occupied by consent of Carroll or Kiro to conduct somewhat misleading because the rule George Carroll and John Kiro traveling the search; and the search was not is not limited in application to auto­ from the direction of Detroit toward incidental to an arrest, inasmuch as no mobiles. As noted above in Carroll, the Grand Rapids. About 2 months prior to arrests occurred until after the search Court suggested that the same charac­ the sighting, the same two men, driving uncovered the contraband. teristics which distinguish automobiles the same automobile, had met with the Nevertheless, the Supreme Court from houses are applicable to a "ship, agents (who were acting in an under- upheld the search and affirmed the motorboat, wagon" or "othervehicle."9 convictions. In so doing, the Court Indeed, in subsequent cases, the ex­ acknowledged the general requirement ception has been applied by the courts that a warrant be obtained prior to conducting a search, but concluded

t 24 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin November 1961 / 25 ., f I ~- ----

,

- !

". . . the exception to the warrant requirement recogni2:ed in Carroll is distinct from, and should not be confused with, one of the other major exceptions to the warrant requirement-the search incidental to arrest."

to sustain warrantless searches of a against the law. 22 Furthermore, while were two obvious reasons. First, the thG 1970's as one of the most effective Most law enforcement officers to­ participated in negotiations with Carroll variety of vehicles, including boats,10 the search may extend beyond the case which gave rise to the new rule search and seizure tools available to day can quote some variation of that and his partners to purchase whiskey aircraft,11 carnper trailers,12 mobile passenger compartment to other parts involved a warrantless search conduct­ the modern law enforcement officer. It definition. On the other hand, any dis­ from them, they also personally ob­ homes,13 tractor-trailers,14 and even a of the vehicle where the evidence or ed by Federal officers under the au­ I is this renewed vitality which compels a cussion of probable cause is likely to served Carroll's vehicle on two occa­ \ U-haul trailer attached to an auto­ contraband sought can reasonably be thority of a Federal statute. But more closer look at the rule. generate a comment to this effect: "I sions traveling a road known to the 15 { mobile. Therefore, throughout this ar­ located-including the trunk-it may importantly, the fourth amendment it­ I The vehicle exception, by defini­ can't tell you what it is, but I know it agents as one commonly used by ticle, the phrase "vehicle exception" is not extend into separate containers, self-with its proscription of unreason­ tion, envisions the law enforcement of­ when I see it." While the statement is bootleggers, and they had personal used in lieu of "automobile exception," such as suitcases, found in the vehicle able searches and seizures, its ! ficer on the scene making the initial generally meant to be amusing, it, nev­ knowledge of the area's reputation as inasmuch as the rule clearly is intended "unless the container is such that its Warrant Clause, and its judicially de­ judgment as to its applicability. There ertheless, expresses an important a center for the illicit whiskey business. to embrace mobile vehicles in general. contents may he said to be in plain vised Exclusionary Rule-had not yet are two threshold questions which point-probable cause is a concept In Brinegar v. United States,34 an The second point to be empha­ view," 23 either because the contents be8n applied to the States. In a word, must be answered. Is there probable more conducive to illustration than to investigator for the Alcohol Tax Unit sized is that the exception to the war­ can be inferred from the very nature of the authority possessed by State and cause to believe evidence or contra­ definition. was parked in a car in northeastern rant requirement recognized in Carroll the container or because the container local officers to search for and seize band is in the vehicle? If so, are there The following cases will perhaps Oklahoma near the Missouri-Oklahoma is distinct from, and should not be itself is not closed. 24 evidence was defined essentially by exigent circumstances which would serve to illustrate the quality and quan­ State line when he observed Brinegar confused with, one of the other major The foregOing may tempt the read­ the legislatures and courts of the re­ justify a warrantless search? tity of information deemed necessary drive past from the direction of Joplin, except:ons to the warrant require­ er to concur with a recent observation of spective States. by the courts to establish probable Mo. He had arrested Brinegar in the ment-the search incidental to arrest. Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist that This picture began to change in The Probable Cause Requirement cause to believe evidence or contra­ recent past for illegally transporting The latter is dependent upon a "the decisions of this Court dealing 194927 when the Supreme Court applied "In enforcing the Fourth band is in a vehicle. It will be noted that liquor, had personally observed him lawful custodial arrest,16 regardless of with the constitutionality of warrantless the 4th amendment to the States Amendment's prohibition against the facts and circumstances which loading liquor into a vehicle in Joplin, the probability that weapons or evi­ searches, especially when those through the Due Process Clause of the unreasonable searches and give rise to probable cause may come Mo., on at least two occasions in the dence would in fact be found,17 and searches are of vehicles, suggest that 14th amendment and followed up that seizures, the Court has insisted upon from a variety of sources and may be recent past, and knew him to have a reputation for hauling liquor. In addi­ encompasses the arrestee's person this branch of the law is something less decision by imposing the Exclusionary probable cause as a minimum acquired through the firsthand experi­ tion, the vehicle appeared to the officer and the area within his immediate con­ than a seamless web." 25 But if it illus­ Rule in 1961.28 requirement for a reasonable search ences of an officer or through second­ to be heavily loaded. The Supreme trol,18 an area which the Supreme Court trates the complexities of searc!: olnd The cumulative effect of these de­ permitted by the Constitution."31 hand (hearsay) sources. More often Court concluded that this information has quite recently construed to mean seizure law relating to vehicle searches velopments was to focus greater atten­ In Carroll, the Supreme Court pro­ til an not, it Is a combination of tile two. was sufficient to establish probable the passenger compartment (but not today, it also emphasizes the need for tion on the few carefully delineated and vided one of the most frequently cited A review of some examples of prob­ cause to search Brinegar's automobile the trunk) 19 of an automobile following law enforcement officers to possess a limited exceptions to the warrant re­ definitions of probable cause: able cause as determined by tile the arrest of its occupant(s), including workable knowledge of that law. quirement, particularly the little-known " ... facts and circumstances within courts will enhance our ability to "know for liquor. A particularly interesting case in­ any containers, opened or closed,20 and rarely used vehicle exception. In their knowledge, and of which they it when we see it." volving an officer's personal knOWl­ found therein. Developments the midst of a persistent stream of had reasonably trustworthy As the Supreme Court has stated: edge and observations is United States Conversely, the validity of a At the time of its conception, and cases from the Supreme Court in re­ information .... sufficient in "In dealing with probable cause ... v. Matthews,35 decided by the U.S. search conducted pursuant to the vehi­ for many years thereafter, the vehicle cent years in which the warrant re­ themselves to warrant a man of we deal with probabilites. These are Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. cle exception is not dependent upon exception to the warrant requirement quirement has been emphasized and reasonable caution in the not technical; they are the factual Military officers on a military base ob­ the right to arrest 21 but is dependent of the fourth amendment created hard­ extended,29 the vehicle exception may belief.... "32 and practical considerations of served a civilian car with military li­ on the reasonable cause (probable ly a ripple in State and local law en­ be said to have flourished, with its everyday life on which reasonable cense plates. Their suspicions were cause) the officer has for belief that the forcement circles. Although the most remarkable period of growth be­ and prudent men, not legal aroused further because the car did contents of the automobile oflend Supreme Court had occasion to recog­ ginning in 1970 and continuing virtually technicians, act."33 not have a military decal and the offi­ nize its holding in Carroll on at least without pause to the present. During cers knew that it should if it were an four other occasions between 1925 this 11-year period, there have been FIRSTHAND INFORMATION Ii authorized military vehicle. When Mat­ i: and 1970,26 not one of those cases more than 12 cases30 decided by the Personal Knowledge involved State prosecutions. There thews was asked for identification, he [' U.S. Supreme Court alone which have Personal knowledge is obviously I' recognized the rule, almost all of them one of the most common sources of ri " involving searches of vehicles con­ information establishing probable /' Ii ducted by State and local officers and cause. The Carroll case itself is illustra­ 1.1 some of them broadening the applica­ tive. The Federal agents personally Ii,. tion of the rule. Contrasting the past 11 i\ years of its life with the first 45 con­ tl firms the view tllat the vehicle excep­ ft tion has emerged from the decade of \!<: II November 1981 / 27 , 26 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin I ct ut: I, ..... r

:; I ----~------...... ,----- ,

"The plain view sighting of evidence or contraband in a vehicle not only subjects them to seizure but may provide probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle for other such objects."

". . . probable cause may emanate smelled the odor of marihuana ema­ SECONDHAND INFORMATION from the collective knowledge of the produced an apparently altered regis­ contraband. . . ." 38 Furthermore, the For example, in United States v. nating from the trailers. The Federal Identifiable Sources court stated: Johnson,41 a vehicle was stopped by police, though the officer who per­ tration form for a Chevrolet, even appeals court sustained the search, It is probably safe to say that most though the car in question was a Ford. "The lawfulness of the search was police at night for a traffic violation. forms the act of arresting or search­ stating, ". . . smell alone is sufficient crimes do not occur in the presence of Three male occupants left the vehicle ing may be less informed." 49 Matthews was unable to produce his not dependent upon the trooper's probable cause f or a sa.e rch" 43 law enforcement officers. For that rea­ having probable cause to believe the and approached the police car, while a Another illustration may be hE;!lpful. military log book, which the officers son, the information necessary to es­ female remained inside. A routine war­ In Wood v. Crouse,50 a county sheriff knew military veilicles carry. The court cargo consisted of stolen cigarettes. Officer's Expertise tablish probable cause must frequently rant check revealed that one of the arrested the occupants of an auto­ determined that "the facts of this case It is enough that he had probable The weight which an officer may come to the officer from secondhand indicate that there was probable cause cause to believe that the truck was men was wanted for assault and bat­ mobile based on a report that an occu­ attribute to a particular item of informa­ sources. Typical is information re­ pant of a vehicle of precisely the same to search the vehicle for evidence per­ carrying stolen goods or some sort tery. He was immediately arrested and tion and the inferences which he may ceived from victims or witnesses 46 or description had attempted to pass a 36 of contraband." 39 searched, whereupon a number of taining to its theft." draw therefrom are largely the result of that which is transmitted to the officer .410-gage shotgun shells were found stolen check. At the time of the arrest, Another case to illustrate the im­ the officer's training and experience. by radio.47 Plain View in his pocket. An officer approached a stolen check was found in the shirt portance of an officer's personal knOWl­ The courts are cognizant of that fact In addition, information possessed 37 In addition to those cases wherein the stopped vehicle, shined a flashlight pocket of one of the individuals. The edge is United States v. Gomori. A and rely upon it in evaluating probable by fellow officers may be attributed to West Virginia State trooper stopped a the officers had personal knowledge of occupants were removed to jail and inside, and saw what appeared to be cause. the officer making an arrest or con­ rental truck in the northern panhandle criminal activities or personally ob­ the vehicle left parked by the highway. the butt end of a shotgun wedged be­ In United States v. Zurosky,44 Fed­ ducting a search under the "collective of the State, based on a departmental served suspiciollS activities or circum­ tween the cushions of the back seat. At the sheriff's request, a highway eral customs officers observed a boat knowledge" rule. An example is United communication advising that such ve­ stances, there are cases wherein The officer entered the car and re­ patrolman took the keys, drove the tied to a fish warehouse loading dock States v. Hawkins,48 in which an officer hicles were being used to transport probable cause may arise because an moved a 12-gage sawed-off shotgun. vehicle to the sheriff's office, and where a large amount of marihuana using binoculars observed Hawkins ap­ stolen goods. At the time of the stop, officer sees evidence or contraband in A further search located a .410 sawed­ searched it, locating 93 additional was discovered. When the officers parently engaged in peddling marihua­ the trooper noticed the truck was heav­ "plainview." In Harrisv. UnitedStates, 40 off shotgun in the front seat area. The stolen checks. At the time of the boarded the vessel, they noticed the na. After one transaction, the officer ily loaded and resting on overload the Supreme Court stated: Federal appellate court upheld the search, the patrolman was aware of a decks and hold were wet, despite the observed Hawkins carry the money ob­ springs. The operator of the truck pro­ "It has long been settled that objects seizure of the first shotgun under the report that some checks had been absence of rain or high seas. A search tained to the trunk of his car. Informa­ duced a lease agreement which indi­ falling in the plain view of an officer plain view doctrine (including use of stoien and of an attempt to pass such of the boat revealed a quantity of mari­ tion concerning the transaction was cated he was carrying a load of who has a right to be in the position the flashlight) and held that the finding checks. He was not present when the huana. In sustaining the search, the radioed to another officer, who arrived furniture. However, when asked the na­ to have that view are subject to of the first shotgun gave probable arrests were made and was not aware Federal court of appeals stated: on the scene and placed Hawkins un­ seizure and may be introduced in that a stolen check had been discov­ ture of his cargo, the operator stated cause to search the car for other "Taking into account thEl officers' der arrest. The arresting officer re­ evidence." ered on one of the vehicle's occu­ the truck was empty. The trooper re­ weapons. experience it was reasonable for moved marihuana, money, and the quested to search the truck by con­ The plain view sighting of evi­ pants. them to bell eve that an effort had keys to the car from Hawkins and then Nevertheless, the Federal appel­ sent, which was twice refused, but dence or contraband in a vehicle not Sensory Perception been made to eliminate evidence of searched the car, where additional evi­ late court upheld the search based on granted when the trooper stated that only subjects them to seizure but may The rationale of the plain view marijuana by hosing down the ship dence was found. Hawkins challenged he would get a search warrant. The provide probable cause to conduct a probable cause and concluded: doctrine has logically been applied to and also reasonable for them to be­ the search of his car, contending that search revealed a truckload of stolen search of the vehicle for other such "In determining whether probable other sensory perceptions, particularly lieve that a thorough search of it the supervising officer who ordered the cigarettes. objects. cause existed we must evaluate the the sense of smell. In United States v. would reveal marijuana." 45 search lacked probable cause. The Gomori challenged the search, collective information of all the offi­ Rumpf,42 Federal Drug Enforcement Federal court of appeals rejected the contending that the consent was not cers." 51 agents in New Mexico observed two argument and concluded that probable ,,- voluntarily given. The U.S. Court of I ~ vehicles with camper trailers, previous­ caLIse existed. In a [\:;otnote to the Unidentified Sources-Informants Appeals for the Fourth Circuit by­ ly observed in connection with a mari­ opinion, the court explained: When the source of information r passed the consent issue, however, huana transaction, traveling in an area I' can be clearly identifed, a reviewing d and ruled that there was "probable which the agents had learned would be I: magistrate can readily ~valuate th.e .in­ cause for the trooper to believe that the pickup site for a load of marihuana !l formation presented In determining I' the truck was carrying stolen goods or coming from Mexico. The following i, whether there is probable cause. Other­ morning, the same vehicles were fol­ wise, it may be impossible to ascertain ff lowed from the area of the pickup to a how credible the source may be or l: farm where the agents observed mari­ i\ whether the information itself is reliable. )! huana in plain view. In addition, they

II,1 \ 1\ h \! , November 1961 / 29 II 28 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin f n .... ~

1 I., ,;,~ ,

". . . information possessed by fellow officers may be attributed to the officer making an arrest or conducting a search under the 'collective knowledge' rule."

35615 F.2d 1279 (loth Cir. 1979); see also, Orricerv. Footnotes They also confirm an important £rickson, 471 F.2d 1204 (8th Cir. 1973) • Nevertheless, the necessity for us­ In Arkansas v. Sanders,53 a case Through other investigation, the • The fou"h amendment reads as follows: "The right 3Dld. Malthews, at 1287. point made by the Supreme COl.Jrt sev­ of the people to be secure in their persons. houses, ing confidential sources to est.ablish in which the Supreme Court sup­ officers learned that the individual to 37 437 F.2d 312 (4th Cir. 1971). eral years ago concerning the probable papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and 3BId. at 314. probable cause has long been recog­ pressed the fruits of a warrantless whom the Toyota was registered had a seizures, shall not be Violated, and no Warrants shall '"Id. cause standard: Issue, but upon probable cause. supported by Oath or 40 390 U.S. 234 (1968). nized by the courts. Special rules have search of a suitcase found in an auto­ daughter who matched the description "The long-prevailing standards seek affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be 41 506 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1974); see also. Unite~ been devised to accommodate the mobile, the Court nevertheless found of the female in the motel room and searched, and the persons or things to be seized." States v. MJ1hollan. 599 F.2d 518 (3d Cir. 1979); United. to safeguard citizens from ras.h an~ 2 Katz v. United States. 389 U.S. 347 (1967). States ex rel La Belle v. La Vallee. 517 F.2d 750 (2d Cir. competing interests of law enforce­ that there was probable cause estab­ who was under indictment in Texas, 3 United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 (1951). unreasonable interferences With pri­ ment on the one hand, and some as­ lished by an informant's tip and the and that the vehicle had recently been • 267 U.S. 132. 1975); 576 F.2d 818 (10th Clr. 1978). cerl. denied, 439 vacy and from unfounded charges of • Id. at 153. U.S. 864 (1979). surance that information used to officers' corroborating observations. in Mexico. Furthermore, during the pe­ 61d. at 154 and 155. 43 Id. at 823; see also, Um~ed States v. Ballard, 600 crime. They also seek to give fair F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. SIgel. 500 F.2d establish probable cause to arrest or The Court said: riod of surveillance, the occupants of 71d. at 149. leeway for enft)rcing the law in the BId. at 153. 1118 (10th Cir. 1974): UniledStatesv. Cohn, 472 F.2d 290 search is reasonably trustworthy on "A previously reliable informant had the motel were visited by an individual • Supra note 4, at 149. , (9th Clr. 1973) • community's protection. Because . '0 United Slates v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559 (1927); United .. Supra note 10. the other. known to the officers as a dealer in 45 Id. at 790; see also, United States v. Darrow, 499 provided a detailed account of many situatio'ls which confront offi­ Statesv. HIlton. 619 F.2d 127 (1st Clr.1980), cerl. denied, In Aguilar v. Texas, 52 the Supreme (Sanders') expected arrival at the marihuana. 101 S.C. 243 (1981); United States v. Laughman, 618 F.2d F.2d 64 (6th Cir. 1974). cers in the course of executing their 1067 (4th Cir. 1980), cerl. denied, 447 U.S. 92~ (1980); 46 See. e.g., United States ex rei. Stambridge. v. Court established a two-pronged test Little Rock Airport, which account The following day, the officers fol­ United States v. Zurkosky. 614 F.2d 779 (1st Clr. 1979).­ Zelker, 514 F.2d 45 (2d Clr.1975);Johnsonv. Wnght, 509 duties are more or less ambiguous, requiring that a reviewing magistrate proved to be accurate in every detail, lowed the three individuals to another cerl. denied, 446 U.S. 967 (1980); United States v. Wem­ F.2d 828 (5th Cir. 1975). roon! must be allowed for some mis­ rich. 586 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1978), cerl. denied, 441 U.S. 47 See, e.g .. United States v. Kemper, 503 F.2d 32: be advised of: (1) The underlying cir­ including the color of the suitcase. location and observed what appeared 927 (1979); Um~ed States v. Hickman, 523 F.2d 323 (9th (6th Cir. 1974); McNeary v. Stone. 428 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. taKes on their part. But the mistakes cumstances from which the confiden­ . . . Having probable cause to be­ to be a narcotics transaction. One per­ Clr.1975). 1973). " . d 4 U S must be those of reasonable men, 11 United States v. Montgomery, 620 F.2d 753 (10th 48 595 F.2d 751 (D.C. Cir. 1978), cerl. uenle .4 1 •• tial informant concluded the facts lieve that contraband was being driv­ son was observed removing some Clr 1980); UnitedSlatesv. Good, 603 F.2d 122 (10th.Clr. 910 (1979). . acting on facts leading sensibly to 1979); Uniled States V. Brennan, 53B F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 4. Katz, supra note 2, at 752-753; see also, Umte~ supplied were true (i.e., how did the en away in a taxi, the police were white bags from the trunk of the their conclusions of probability ... 1976), cerl. denied, 429 U.S. 1092 (1976). . Statesv. Sink. 586 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir. 1978), cerl. demed, informant acquire the information); and justifi.Br,! in stopping the vehicle, Toyota, at which point the officers .2 United States v. Rumpf. 576 F.2d BIB (10th CIr, 443 U.S. 912 (1979). Requiring more would unduly ham­ 1978), cerl. denied, 439 U.S. B93 (1979). . 50 436 F.2d 1077 (10th Cir. 1971). (2) the reason for believing the source. searching it on the spot, and seizing moved in, searched the Toyota, and 13 United States v. MIller, 450 F.2d 582 (10th CIr. "Id. at 1078. per law enforcement. To allow less "378 U,S. 108 (1964). If the confidential informant's tip is to the suitcase. . . ." 54 arrested the three occupants upon 1972). C' would be to leave law-abiding citi­ ., United Stales v. Forrest, 620 F.2d 446 (5th Ir. 53 Supra note 23. be tha sole basis for the probable Another illustrative case is United finding marihuana in the trunk. The 1980); United States v. Bozado, 473 F.2d 3B9 (8th Cir. "Id. at 761. zens at the mercy of the officers' "497 F.2d 719 (7th Cir. 1974). , cause, both prongs of the test must be States v. Nocar.55 Federal narcotics probable cause for the search was 1975!~UniledStatesv. Gulledge. 469 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. .6 See also. Brewerv. Wolff, 529 F.2d 787 (8th CIr, whim or caprice." 57 met. Otherwise, the i!1formation must officers received telephone information challenged by the defendants on the 1976); United States v. Gomez. 529 F.2d 412 (5th Clr. . Once an officer has concluded 1973.)~ United States v. Robinson. 414 U.S. 21B, 235 1976); UnitedStatesv.Anderson, 500 F.2d 1311 (5th CIr, be corroborated by other evidence. from an informant who had previously ground that the informant's tip did not that probable cause exists to believe (1973). 1974). This standard, which governs the supplied reliable information that two indicate the basis for the assertion that 17 Id. .7 Brinegar. supra note 26. at 176, that a conveyance contains evidence 18 Chimelv. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). '8 Chambers. supra note 30, at 51. issuance of a search warrant, is also men and a woman, driving a blue the persons he mentioned were at­ •• New York v. Belton. 29 Crl 3124 (1981). or contraband, the first requirement of applicable when an officer is making a Toyota automobile with Texas license tempting to sell narcotics (i.e., the first 2°ld. the vehicle exception is met. However, 2. Carroll. supra note 4, at 158-159; see also, Hustyv. judgment of probable cause to support plates, were in Chicago attempting to prong of the Aguilar test~, The court Um~edStales, 282 U.S. 694. 699 (1931). the Supreme Court has cautioned: a warrantless search. locate buyers for narcotics. The infor­ rejected the argument, holding that the " Id. Carroll, at 159. . "Neither Carroll _ .. nor other cases '3 Arkansas v. Sanders. 442 U.S. 753 (1979); Robbms As the following cases demon­ mant's information included a descrip­ v. California, 29 Crl 3115 (1981). informant was credible because he in this Court require or suggest that strate, when probable cause to search tion of the general a.rea where the " Id. Robbins. had supplied reliable information in the in every conceivable circumstance '5 Cadyv. Dombrowski. 413 U.S. 433, 440 (1973~. a vehicle is dependent upon an infor­ three were staying at a motel. The past, and furthermore, the additional 26 Bnnegarv. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), the search of an auto even with Scherv. United States, 305 U.S. 251 (1938); Husty, supra mant's tip, there is usually other evi­ vehicle was located by the officers at a investigation conducted by the officers note 21' United Stales v. Lee. 274 U.S. 559 (1927). probable cause may be made with­ 27 Woltv. Colorado. 367 U.S. 643 (1949). dence to corroborate. motel in the area indicated by the in­ provided sufficient corroboration. 56 out the extra protection for privacy "Mapp v. Ohio. 367 U.S. 643 (1961). formant. They confirmed through ob­ The foregoing cases illustrate the ,. E.g., Sleagaid v. United States, 68 L.Ed. 2d ,38. that a warrant affords. _ .." 58 (19Bl); Minceyv. Arizona. 437 U.S. 385 (1978); "!Ichlgan Ii servation that two men and a woman manner in which the prob~ble cause v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (197B); Marshallv. Barlows Inc., II Part II of this artiC!'e will discuss if were occupying the room to which the standard has been applieci by the 436 U.S. 307 (1978); Katz, supra note 2. . the circumstances which, coupled with 30 E.g., Robbins, supra note 23; Colorado v. B~nmster. II vehicle occupants were registered. courts to warrantless ~-~hicle searches. 66 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980); Sanders, supra note 23; United probable cause, 'invoke the vehicle ex­ They emphasize the net _dsity of facts Slates v Mariinez·Fuerle, 428 U.S. 543 (1976); South !: ception and justify a warrantless Dakota~. Opperman. 428 U.S. 367 (1976); Texas v. White, \ ~ and circumstances to establish prob­ 423 U.S. 67 (1975); United States v. OrllZ, 422. U.S. 891 search. FBI (1975); Cardweilv. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974), Cady, II able cause and demonstrate the im­ supra note 25; Almeida-Sanchezv. Un~ed States. 413 U.S. portance of an officer being capable of 266 (1973)' Coolidge v New Hampshlfe. 403 U.S. 443 t{ (1971); ch~mbers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970). articulating those facts and circum­ (Continued next month) 31 Id. Chambers. stances upon which he relied. " Supra note 4, ftt 162. \1 33 Supra note 26. "Id. t~ Ii I' \: II November 1981 I 31 ( v "'- 30 I FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin t I

1 I ... \ I I

\

1

1

,.

., ,

.~.

'D ~, • ....--..--~--.-·-~;r-"-'-<"­

.~'f.;, .. 1 I