Eugene H. Adams v. United States, 336 F.2d 752 (D.C. Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Eugene H. Adams v. United States, 336 F.2d 752 (D.C. Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1968 · …flight from law officers is evidence of guilt at p. 620 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1965 · …we do not consider that the fact that crawford had left the scene when his automobile was searched prevented such search from being incidental to his arrest. ⚠ not in text
71 citation events across 18 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Clark (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
E.D. Pa. · 1968 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
flight from law officers is evidence of guilt
discussed Cited "see" Davidson v. Boles (2×)
N.D.W. Va. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
See, for example, Adams v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 364 , 336 F.2d 752 (1964); and Arwine v. Bannan, 346 F.2d 458 (6th Cir. 1965).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Anne Francolino (2×)
2d Cir. · 1966 · signal: accord · confidence high
Stoner v. State of California, 376 U.S. 483 , 84 S.Ct. 889 , 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964), and James v. State of Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36 , 86 S.Ct. 151 , 15 L.Ed.2d 30 (1965), add nothing to Preston on this score. 4 Both the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and this court have held that Preston did not 'require officers lawfully arresting occupants of an automobile to make a considered and correct on-the-spot determination whether the circumstances of the arrest might render it feasible to secure a warrant before searching the car.' United States v. Gorman, 355 F.2d 151, 155 (2 Cir. 1965)…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Robert William Gorman and Edward Terrence Roche (2×)
2d Cir. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See Adams v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 364 , 336 F.2d 752 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 977 , 85 S.Ct. 676 , 13 L.Ed.2d 567 (1965).
examined Cited "see" James H. Bowling v. United States (4×)
D.C. Cir. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See Adams v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 364 , 336 F.2d 752 (1964), where we declined to apply Preston because the search was strictly contemporaneous to the arrest.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eugene H. ADAMS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
18486.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Aug 20, 1964.
336 F.2d 752
Mr. Robert Martin, with whom Miss Elise B. Heinz (both appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Daniel J. McTague, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Ne-beker and Barry Sidman, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Bazelon, Wright, McGowan.
Cited by 38 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 66%
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
PER CURIAM.

The evidence which we must accept in passing on the issue of probable cause for arrest presented here shows that in the early morning hours two men ran when a police scout car came on the scene, that immediate subsequent search of the area disclosed the robbery of a liquor store, and that within one half hour after their initial encounter, the police recognized one of the men, appellant here, getting into a car in a parking lot behind the looted store and arrested him. While agreeing with appellant that flight produces probative evidence of a low order, [1] we think that this evidence in its totality is sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest.

The issue as to the admissibility of the evidence found in the trunk of the car is more difficult. The Government seeks to justify the search of the trunk as an incident to appellant’s arrest. Appellant argues that the search without warrant was illegal since the trunk was locked, the car keys were turned over to the police, and hence there was no danger that, after being arrested, he “could have used any weapons in the car or could have destroyed any evidence of a crime Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 368, 84 S.Ct. 881, 883, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964). Thus there was no emergency justifying-a search without a warrant.

Preston did hold that a warrantless car search subsequent to an arrest was illegal, but there the search was not an incident to the arrest. It occurred at the police station to which both the parties arrested and the car had been brought. Thus the search “was too remote in time or place to have been made as incidental[*753] to the arrest * * Preston v. United States, supra, 376 U.S. at 368, 84 S.Ct. at 884. See also Smith v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. -, 335 F.2d 270 (1964).

We recognize, of course, the logic in appellant’s argument. After his arrest there was no danger from unseen weapons or of evidence disappearing from the locked trunk of the car. The status quo with respect to the trunk could have been maintained until a search warrant was issued, particularly since the ear itself was impounded by the police. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948). But as far as we are aware, no court has yet held that a car, including its trunk, may not be searched without warrant at the time and place its occupants are placed under lawful arrest. We are not persuaded that we should be the first court to do so.

Affirmed.

1

. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 483 n. 10, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Cooper v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 345, 218 F.2d 39, 41 (1954).