# Spinner v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · December 30, 1992 · 618 A.2d 176

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746940

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael W. SPINNER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 30, 1992
- **Citations:** 618 A.2d 176; 1992 D.C. App. LEXIS 324; 1992 WL 387481
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by King
- **Judges:** Rogers, Farrell, King
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746940

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that police had probable cause to search defendant's car after arresting him for distributing drugs when an officer looked through the car window and saw a large amount of cash sticking out of a seat pocket

## Opinion text

KING, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join the opinion authored by Chief Judge Rogers but I write separately to emphasize one point. The majority holds that “the police had probable cause to search [the car] because Officer Jenkins had found the Acura ear keys on someone he had arrested for distributing drugs, and upon looking through the car window he could see ‘a large amount of cash sticking out of the back pouch.’ ” Ante p. 179 (emphasis added). I agree that those facts are more than enough to establish probable cause. I join the majority opinion on the understanding that the majority is not holding that probable cause did not exist before the cash was spotted by the police. On facts very similar to those presented here, the Circuit Court held that probable cause to search a vehicle was present once the police learned that the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking, and the vehicle, which brought him to the scene, was located nearby. United States v. Wider, 293 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 19 , 951 F.2d 1283, 1286 (1991). In this case, we need not decide whether probable cause existed before the cash was seen because, as noted, there was probable cause after its discovery, when the search was conducted. I do not read the majority opinion as deciding the issue of whether probable cause existed at the earlier point.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746940. Public record. Not legal advice.