# Douglas-Bey v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · April 16, 1985 · 490 A.2d 1137

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753070

## Case

- **Full name:** W. Steven DOUGLAS-BEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 16, 1985
- **Citations:** 490 A.2d 1137; 1985 D.C. App. LEXIS 370
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nebeker
- **Judges:** Nebeker, Newman, Fer-Ren
- **Cited by:** 12 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/9753070

## Opinion text

NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
concurring:
*1140 I agree that Thompson 1 and Mincey 2 are controlling here. But, unlike those cases, this case does not present a scope of search problem. Here, the evidence, including bullets, bullet holes, and a blood covered bag, were all seized in plain view shortly after the commission of the crime. Thus the crucial question is the validity of the actual entries made by officers Dryden, Stiftar, and Gmitter. Hennessy’s entry and observations are concededly valid. The majority asserts that the procurement of a search warrant was the only way to legitimate the other officers’ entries. True enough, since Hennessy had secured and departed the premises prior to their arrival. However, Hennessy could have stayed on the scene for the short period it took the others to arrive, thus not triggering the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Mincey v. Arizona, supra, 437 U.S. at 392, 98 S.Ct. at 2413.
. Thompson v. Louisiana, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 409 , 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984).
. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753070. Public record. Not legal advice.