the glove compartment before finding the capsule on the seat. He denied that he gave his keys to the police, and he stated that they were forcibly taken from the car's ignition. Furthermore, he denied making any statement consenting to the search of his trunk. Finally, the defendant admitted that he knew that there was marijuana in the trunk, but he denied knowing that there was heroin there. He stated that several different people had used his car, and that he rarely used it himself.
After carefully examining the facts in this case, the Court finds that the police had sufficient reason to stop the defendant's vehicle, especially in light of the fact that the defendant admitted on the stand that the rear light of his car was defective. See United States v. Johnson, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 215, 442 F.2d 1239, 1244 (D.C. Cir. 1971); Washington v. United States, 130 U.S. App. D.C. 374, 401 F.2d 915, 920 (1968). The arrest did not take place with respect to the narcotics until the capsule was discovered by one of the police officers on the front seat. The Court finds, however, that the original purpose of the stop was for the purpose of the "mere issuance of noncustodial citations." United States v. Johnson, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 215, 442 F.2d 1239, 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
Although there was contradictory testimony with respect to the discovery of the red capsule on the front seat, the Court finds that the officers were in a public space and were in a position to observe what any passerby could observe. Our Court of Appeals has on many occasions held that such viewings do not constitute searches violative of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Wright, D.C. Cir., 146 U.S. App. D.C. 126, 449 F.2d 1355, rehearing en banc denied, October 8, 1971; United States v. Johnson, supra ; James v. United States, 135 U.S. App. D.C. 314, 418 F.2d 1150 (1969). The fact that the police used a flashlight as a visual aid does not take away from the fact that the capsule was in plain view. See United States v. Wright, supra, 449 F.2d at 1357-1359; Dorsey v. United States, 125 U.S. App. D.C. 355, 372 F.2d 928, 931 (1967).
The Court further finds that the police officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant after they had observed the red capsule containing the white powder on the front seat of the defendant's car. The probable cause was further supported by the fact that the defendant was seen placing his hand to his mouth in such a manner that he appeared to be swallowing something as he exited his car. Finally, it was noted that the area where the defendant was stopped is known to be a vicinity where there is much narcotics traffic. See United States v. Hines and Ware, No. 23,281, decided November 1, 1971, slip op. at 13; Dorsey v. United States, supra.
The Court also finds that the subsequent search of the trunk in defendant's car was reasonable, since it was conducted on the scene and contemporaneously with his arrest. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1940); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925); Adams v. United States, 118 U.S. App. D.C. 364, 336 F.2d 752 (1964).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court denies the defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.