United States v. Mortimer R. Wheeler, 459 F.2d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Mortimer R. Wheeler, 459 F.2d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Pedro Jolio Prandy-Binett (cadc, 1993-05-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Pedro Jolio Prandy-Binett (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
We have credited officers' recognition of: "a package resembling narcotics," United States v. Thornton, 733 F.2d 121, 127 (D.C.Cir.1984); a distinctive "brown 'change-type' bag," United States v. Russell, 655 F.2d 1261, 1262-63 (D.C.Cir.1981), modified, 670 F.2d 323 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1108 , 102 S.Ct. 2909 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1982); a rectangular tinfoil packet, United States v. Thomas, 551 F.2d 347, 348 (D.C.Cir.1976) (per curiam); a "cream-colored envelope," United States v. Brown, 463 F.2d 949, 950-51 (D.C.Cir.1972); and an unsealed brown envelope, United States v. Wheeler, 4…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. McCarthy
D.C. · 1982 · confidence medium
See Price, supra at 518-19 ; United States v. Wheeler, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 204, 205 , 459 F.2d 1228, 1229 (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Liichow v. State (2×)
Md. · 1980 · confidence medium
Ed. 436 (1948) (probable cause may be based on distinctive odor where officer is "qualified to know the odor”); United States v. McCormick, 468 F.2d 68 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 927 (1973); United States v. Wheeler, 459 F.2d 1228, 1229 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bynum v. United States (2×)
D.C. · 1978 · confidence medium
See Mapp v. Warden, 531 F.2d 1167 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 982 , 97 S.Ct. 498 , 50 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976); United States v. Mason, 173 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 177-78 , 523 F.2d 1122, 1126-27 (1975); United States v. Sedillo, 496 F.2d 151 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 947 , 95 S.Ct. 211 , 42 L.Ed.2d 168 (1974); United States v. Damitz, 495 F.2d 50, 56 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Wheeler, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 204, 205 , 459 F.2d 1228, 1229 (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crawford v. United States
D.C. · 1977 · confidence medium
Hughes v. United States, D.C.App., 363 A.2d 284, 286 (1976); Christmas v. United States, D.C.App., 314 A.2d 473, 476 (1974), citing Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 992 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968), and United States v. Wheeler, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 204 , 459 F.2d 1228, 1229 (1972); Davis v. United States, D.C.App., 284 A.2d 459, 460 (1971); Wise v. United States, D.C.App., 277 A.2d 476, 477 (1971).
cited Cited "see" State v. Kennedy
Wash. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Wheeler, 459 F.2d 1228, 1229 (D.C.
examined Cited "see" United States v. Antonio R. Sedillo (4×)
9th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Wheeler, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 204 , 459 F.2d 1228 (1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schraff v. State (2×)
Alaska · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Wheeler, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 204 , 459 F.2d 1228 (1972). .
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Campbell
Wash. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Wheeler, 459 F.2d 1228 (D.C.Cir. 1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Mortimer R. WHEELER, Appellant
24554.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Feb 22, 1972.
459 F.2d 1228
Mr. Matthew W. Black, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court) for appellant., Mr. John R. Dugan, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Thomas A. Flan-nery, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, John A. Terry and Stephen W. Grafman, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Robinson, MacKinnon, Gourley, Western, Pennsylvania.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
GOURLEY, Senior District Judge:

Appellant was indicted and convicted of narcotics offenses (26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 174) and for carrying a pistol without a license in violation of 22 D.C.Code § 3204. This appeal followed.

Appellant was initially arrested for driving without a proper permit and was advised of his rights. During a patdown at the scene of the arrest, five .38 caliber bullets were discovered. In response to a question regarding the presence of a gun, appellant indicated that it was under the front seat of the car; the police officer discovered a loaded .38 caliber revolver under the driver’s seat. Heroin, contained in thirty-four capsules, was discovered only after appellant was taken into custody when an officer was trying to locate the ignition switch in order to drive the car to the impounding lot. The heroin was found in an unsealed brown envelope which the officer suspected, drawing from his experience, contained narcotics. This suspicion was correct.

There are three issues presented by this appeal: was the seizure of the pistol proper; was the seizure of the envelope and its contents proper; and was the[*1229] appellant validly prosecuted under federal narcotics statutes? The answer in each instance must be in the affirmative.

The scope of the search for the gun and its ultimate seizure were proper. The existence of the gun was freely admitted after a properly conducted pat-down of appellant’s outer clothing revealed the bullets. Seizure of the gun was proper, as was its ultimate use as evidence at trial. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).

We agree with the ruling of the trial judge that the seizure of the envelope and its contents was proper. The open envelope and its contents were seized while in plain view. Although the contents were concealed, the open envelope containing the heroin was in plain view when it was seized. There was probable cause for this seizure in view of the circumstances present here including the size and color of the envelope, its apparent bulk and location in the ashtray of the car, and as noted above, the officer’s experience in having found narcotics in this type envelope on prior occasions. Harris v. United States of America, 370 F.2d 477 (D.C. Cir. 1966) and Fuller v. United States of America, 139 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 433 F. 2d 533 (1970).

The issue raised here regarding the validity of the prosecution under federal narcotics statutes is now under submission to this Court en banc in No. 71-1252, United States v. Moore. Wheeler contends very simply that his prosecution was improper because he was a narcotics addict. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any possible rights of the appellant which may arise from the Court’s ultimate decision jn Moore.

The judgment below is affirmed.