United States v. Stephen Michael Berry, Robert Hugh Wilson, & Donald Gene Richardson, 571 F.2d 2 (7th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Stephen Michael Berry, Robert Hugh Wilson, & Donald Gene Richardson, 571 F.2d 2 (7th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
98 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cletus Greene v. State of Missouri (mo, 2019-09-03) · Strongest negative: Brown v. State (texcrimapp, 1980-01-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Brown v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1980 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861, 864 (7th Cir. 1977) (purse not like briefcase), vacated as improvidently rendered, 571 F.2d 2 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cletus Greene v. State of Missouri
Mo. · 2019 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Matthews, 532 F. App’x 211, 217-18 (3d Cir. 2013); United States v. Carrion, 809 F.2d 1120, 1128-29 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Watson, 669 F.2d 1374, 1383-84 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Monclavo-Cruz, 662 F.2d 1285, 1287-89 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2, 3 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Lee, 501 F.2d 890, 892 (D.C.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Crawford v. State (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Alaska · 2006 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Curd v. City Court of Judsonia, Arkansas, 141 F.3d 839, 843 (8th Cir.1998) (concluding that a purse is an item immediately associated with the person because it is "so closely associated with the person that [it is] identified with and included within the concept of one's person."); Berry, 560 F.2d at 864 (concluding in dicta that a purse "might be characterized as `immediately associated with the person of the arrestee' because it is carried with the person at all times."), vacated on other grounds by United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2, 3 (7th Cir.1978). [21] See supra note 20.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hershey
Iowa Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
U.S. v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2, 3 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, Wilson v. U.S., 439 U.S. 840 , 99 S.Ct. 129 , 58 L.Ed.2d 138 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Dolce
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1981 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Berry, 571 F. 2d 2, 3 (7 Cir.1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 840 , 99 S.Ct. 129 , 58 L.Ed. 2d 138 (1978); United States v. Reda, 563 F. 2d 510 (2 Cir.1977), cert. den. 435 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 1617 , 56 L.Ed. 2d 65 , reh. den. 436 U.S. 923 , 98 S.Ct. 2275 , 56 L.Ed. 2d 766 (1978); United States v. Montgomery, 558 F. 2d 311 (5 Cir.1977) (holding that Chadwick was not to be applied retroactively).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Patino (2×)
N.J. · 1980 · confidence medium
See United States v. Calandrella, 605 F.2d 236, 250-252 (6 Cir. 1979), cert. den. 444 U.S. 991 , 100 S.Ct. 522 , 62 L.Ed.2d 420 (1980); United States v. Choate, 576 F.2d 165 , 182 n.20 (9 Cir. 1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 953 , 99 S.Ct. 350 , 58 L.Ed.2d 344 (1978); United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2, 3 (7 Cir. 1978) (on rehearing), cert. den. sub nom.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Charlie Tucker
2d Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Peltier, supra, 422 U.S. at 542 , 95 S.Ct. 2313 ; Savina Home Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 594 F.2d 1358, 1363-65 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2, 3 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 439 U.S. 840 , 99 S.Ct. 129 , 58 L.Ed.2d 138 (1978). 36 The officers who took appellant into custody were members of the New York City Police Department.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Perez
1st Cir. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2, 3 (7th Cir. 1978) (holding that "until Chadwick, there was no reason for law enforcement officials to - 40 - believe that attache cases were not among those personal effects which, under [Robinson], could be seized as part of a 'full search of the person' incident to a lawful arrest, and which, under [Edwards], could be searched several hours after the suspect had been taken into custody"); see also United States v. Stewart, 595 F.2d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 1979) (finding that if Chadwick was applicable, "it would require suppression of the contents of the at…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Glover
N.D. Ill. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2 , 3 n. 1 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 840 , 99 S.Ct. 129 , 58 L.Ed.2d 138 (1978).
cited Cited "see" Mayhood v. State
Tex. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861 (7th Cir.1977), vacated on other grounds, 571 F.2d 2 (7th Cir.1978).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Venizelos
S.D.N.Y. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861 (7th Cir. 1977), modified, 571 F.2d 2 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 840 , 99 S.Ct. 129 , 58 L.Ed.2d 138 (1978). 20 . 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). 21 . 433 U.S. 1 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 , 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). 22 . 442 U.S. 753 , 99 S.Ct. 2586 , 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979). 23 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. John B. Calandrella, United States of America v. John A. Kaye (2×)
6th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 , 94 S.Ct. 1234 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); see United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861 (7th Cir. 1977), vacated on other grounds, 571 F.2d 2 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 840 , 99 S.Ct. 129 , 58 L.Ed.2d 138 (1978).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Robert Main
7th Cir. · 1979 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
examined Cited "see" Kemner v. State (4×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Daniel Stewart
9th Cir. · 1979 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, United States v. Choate, 576 F.2d 165 , 182 n. 20 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied,U.S.-, 99 S.Ct. 350 , 58 L.Ed.2d 344 (1978) (citing United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861 (7th Cir. 1977), vacated, 571 F.2d 2 (1978) (rehearing granted on the issue of Chadwick’s retroactivity)); United States v. Reda, 563 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977). 8 .
discussed Cited "see" 7 O.S.H. Cas.(bna) 1154, 1979 O.S.H.D. (Cch) P 23,413 Savina Home Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
10th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2, 3 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 129 , 58 L.Ed.2d 138 (1978); United States v. Reda, 563 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1977) (per curiam), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 1617 , 56 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978); United States v. Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Savina Home Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor
10th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2, 3 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 99 S.Ct. 129 , 58 L.Ed.2d 138 (1978); United States v. Reda, 563 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1977) (per curiam), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 1617 , 56 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978); United States v. Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Ronald Schleis (2×)
8th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Berry, 571 F.2d 2 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Reda, 563 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977) 6 Moreover, we note that the Supreme Court did remand this case for our consideration in light of Chadwick.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Preston v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861, 864 (7th Cir.1977), vacated on other grounds, 571 F.2d 2 (1978); United States v. Venizelos, 495 F.Supp. 1277, 1281-83 (S.D.N.Y.1980); and State court cases within the Circuit — Sumlin v. State, 266 Ark. 709 , 587 S.W.2d 571, 577 (Ark.1979) (en banc); State v. Woods, 637 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Mo. Ct.App.1982); State v. Hershey, 371 N.W.2d 190,192 (Iowa Ct.App.1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shirley Curd v. Jess Odem
8th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861, 864 (7th Cir.1977), vacated on other grounds, 571 F.2d 2 (1978); United States v. Venizelos, 495 F.Supp. 1277, 1281-83 (S.D.N.Y.1980); and State court cases within the Circuit—Sumlin v. State, 266 Ark. 709 , 587 S.W.2d 571, 577 (1979) (en banc); State v. Woods, 637 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Mo.Ct.App.1982); State v. Hershey, 371 N.W.2d 190, 192 (Iowa Ct.App.1985). 10 But see United States v. Monclavo-Cruz, 662 F.2d 1285, 1290 (9th Cir.1981) (purse like suitcase and briefcase, not clothing; search of purse at station house not valid as incident to arres…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shirley Curd v. City Court Of Judsonia, Arkansas
8th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861, 864 (7th Cir.1977), vacated on other grounds, 571 F.2d 2 (1978); United States v. Venizelos, 495 F.Supp. 1277, 1281-83 (S.D.N.Y.1980); and State court cases within the Circuit--Sumlin v. State, 266 Ark. 709 , 587 S.W.2d 571, 577 (1979) (en banc); State v. Woods, 637 S.W.2d 113, 116 (Mo.Ct.App.1982); State v. Hershey, 371 N.W.2d 190, 192 (Iowa Ct.App.1985). 10 But see United States v. Monclavo-Cruz, 662 F.2d 1285, 1290 (9th Cir.1981) (purse like suitcase and briefcase, not clothing; search of purse at station house not valid as incident to arrest…
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Joe John Cornejo, Tony Edward Estrada, Magdalena Reyes
9th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. *557 Berry, 571 F.2d 2 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Reda, 563 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 , (5th Cir. 1977).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Stephen Michael BERRY, Robert Hugh Wilson, and Donald Gene Richardson, Defendants-Appellants
76-2014, 76-2037 and 76-2038.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Mar 20, 1978.
571 F.2d 2
Pell, Bauer, Campbell.
Cited by 69 opinions  |  Published

ON REHEARING

Before PELL and BAUER, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge. * BAUER, Circuit Judge.

In an opinion Issued on August 24, 1977, this Court determined that the warrantless search of an arrestee’s briefcase[*3] conducted after the arrest and while the briefcase was in police custody violated the Fourth Amendment under standards articulated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). United States v. Berry, 560 F.2d 861 (7th Cir. 1977). In response to the Government’s Petition for Rehearing, we now grant the petition, and, without oral argument, vacate the earlier opinion as improvidently rendered. Our decision today rests on the conclusion that the exclusionary rule should not be applied retroactively to suppress evidence obtained from the pre-Chadwick search of an arrestee’s briefcase. [1]

The problem of retroactive application of the exclusionary rule in a Fourth Amendment setting was squarely faced by the Supreme Court in United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975). Citing two major rationales for the exclusionary rule — the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations and the “imperative of judicial integrity” — the Court concluded that neither purpose would be served by excluding evidence that “law enforcement officers reasonably believed in good faith . was admissible at trial,” even if decisions subsequent to the search “broadened the exclusionary rule to encompass evidence seized in that manner.” United States v. Peltier, supra at 537, 542, 95 S.Ct. at 2317. Thus, according to the Court, the critical question in determining if the exclusionary rule should be applied retroactively on a given set of facts is not so much whether the decision invalidating the search “constitutes a sharp break in the line of earlier authority,” Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481, 499, 88 S.Ct. 2224, 2234, 20 L.Ed.2d 1231 (1968), but rather, “[whether] the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Peltier, supra, 422 U.S. at 542, 95 S.Ct. at 2320.

Relying on this formulation of the inquiry, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Montgomery, 558 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1977), and the Second Circuit in United States v. Reda, 563 F.2d 510 (2nd Cir. 1977), have held that Chadwick is not to be applied retroactively. We find this position persuasive for, until Chadwick, there was no reason for law enforcement officials to believe that attache cases were not among those personal effects which, under United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973), could be seized as part of a “full search of the person” incident to a lawful arrest, and which, under United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974), could be searched several hours after the suspect had been taken into custody. More to the point, on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Robinson and Edwards, courts of appeals had held (prior to Chadwick) that law enforcement officials may indeed seize a briefcase or package in the possession of a person at the time of arrest, and subsequently search the property without a warrant after the arrested person has been taken into custody. United States v. Schleis, 543 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Battle, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 510 F.2d 776 (1975). See also United States ex rel. Muhammed v. Mancusi, 432 F.2d 1046 (2d Cir. 1970).

In the light of this authority, we cannot say that the law enforcement officials here could be properly charged with knowledge that the search of Wilson’s briefcase was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Peltier, supra, 422 U.S. at 542, 95 S.Ct. 2313. For this reason, we decline to apply the exclusionary rule retroactively to suppress the evidence obtained from that search. Thus, our opinion of August 24, 1977 is hereby vacated and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The retroactivity issue was fully addressed in both the Government’s Petition for Rehearing and the Defendants-Appellants’ Answer. It was not raised by either party in the earlier proceedings, however, since Chadwick was decided by the Supreme Court after oral argument in this case.