# Petition — Miller v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2215%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1979 - **Citation:** 440 U.S. 958 ## Text if cupreme oust, U. & ry | : ' 4 o6FILED’ ¥I DEC 151978 || In the {_MICUATL peneK, JR., CLERK | Supreme Court of the United States. OcroBer TERM, 1978. No. . é ~ hg? oe “OH JACKIE DAVID MILLER, PETITIONER, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. JosePH S. OTERI, MartTIN G. WEINBERG, JupITH Farris BowMAN, Orer! & WEINBERG, 10 Post Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. (617) 227-3700 BATEMAN & SLADE, INC. BOSTON , MASSACHUSETTS. Table of Contents. Opinions below Jurisdiction Question presented Constitutional provision involved Statement of the case Reasons why the writ should be granted The question presented by petitioner’s case is a re- current and important constitutional issue in the administration of criminal justice and one which has divided the Circuit Courts of Appeals Conclusion Appendix Memorandum of opinion and order of United States District Court for the District of Maine on defendant’s motion to suppress Opinion of United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Table of Authorities Cited. CASES. Bertrand v. United States, 467 F. 2d 901 (5th Cir. 1972) Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605 (1972) Gollaher v. United States, 419 F. 2d 520 (9th Cir. “IO oS WO NO = 14 la 29a 14n 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 960 (1969) 8, 9n, 10n ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) 7 Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968) 7 LeBlanc v. United States, 391 F. 2d 916 (Ist Cir. 1968) 8n Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965) 14 Scott v. United States, 419 F. 2d 264 (D.C. Cir. 1969) 8, 12n Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) 7 Thomas v. United States, 368 F. 2d 941 (5th Cir. 1966) 7,8 Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948) 13n United States v. Chaidez-Castro, 430 F. 2d 766 (7th Cir. 1970) 9n, 10n United States v. Floyd, 477 F. 2d 217 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1044 (1973) 14n United States v. Floyd, 496 F. 2d 982 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied sub nom. Miller v. United States, 419 U.S. 1069 (1974) 8 United States v. Garcia, 544 F. 2d 681 (3d Cir. 1976) 8 United States v. Grayson, ___._ U.S. ___., 98 S. Ct. 2610 (1978) 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 United States v. Hopkins, 464 F. 2d 816 (D.C. Cir. 1972) 10, 13n United States v. Jansen, 475 F. 2d 312 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 826 (1973) 13n, 14n United States v. Kimbrell, 470 F. 2d 280 (5th Cir. 1972) 14n United States v. Laca, 499 F. 2d 922 (5th Cir. 1974) 13n United States v. Lehman, 468 F. 2d 93 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 967 (1972) 9n United States v. Moore, 427 F. 2d 38 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 965 (1970) ]4n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED. ili United States v. Rodriguez, 498 F. 2d 302 (5th Cir. 1974) 13n United States v. Rogers, 504 F. 2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1042 (1975) 8n United States v. Santiago, 582 F. 2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1978) 8, 9n, 10n United States v. Thompson, 476 F. 2d 1196 (7th Cir. 1973) 9n United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) 13n United States v. Vermeulen, 436 F. 2d 72 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 911 (1971) 9n United States v. Wiley, 278 F. 2d 500 (7th Cir. 1960) l4n United States v. Wright, 533 F. 2d 214 (5th Cir. 1976) 13n Williams v. United States, 273 F. 2d 469 (10th Cir. 1959) 14n CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS. United States Constitution Fifth Amendment 2,6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11 et seq. Sixth Amendment 12 18 U.S.C. § 2 4 $1 U.S. § 841(a)(1) § 844(a) § 952(a) § 960(a) (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) non + + & > In the Supreme Court of the United States. - Ocrosper Term, 1978. No. JACKIE DAVID MILLER, PETITIONER, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Jackie David Miller petitions for a writ of certiorari to re- view the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit entered in this case on November 15, 1978. Opinions Below. The Court of Appeals issued an opinion, not yet reported, on November 15, 1978. The opinion is reproduced in the Ap- pendix at pp. 29a-68a. The District Court for the District of Maine issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying petitioner’s motion to suppress. That opinion is reproduced in the Appendix at pp. la-28a. 2 Jurisdiction. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on No- vember 15, 1978 (App. 29a). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Question Presented. Whether consideration of a defendant’s failure to confess or to cooperate with the government, when determining the length of sentence to be imposed, unjustifiably penalizes the exercise of his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Con- stitution, Constitutional Provision Involved. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or in- dictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be de- prived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, 3 Statement of the Case. On May 13, 1977, employees of a marina in Arrowsic, Maine, discovered a yacht fouled in one of the marina’s moor- ings. Since the boat was unknown to them and apparently abandoned, the marina employees notified the Coast Guard who, in turn, notified local police (App. 30a-3la).! Concerned about a possible drowning and suspecting a drug smuggling operation, the police arranged for divers and called the Drug Enforcement Administration (App. 3la). The next morning, two local officers examined the interior of the boat and dis- covered the remains of marijuana cigarettes and a chart with a course pencilled in, leading toward a small, privately owned peninsula known as Mill Isle (App. 3la-32a). Petitioner arrived at the marina soon afterward and identi- fied himself as the owner of the yacht to a marina employee, but left the marina immediately without arranging to rent a mooring. Police officers pursued him and brought him and his truck back to the marina, where he was questioned by local officers and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (App. 32a-33a). Marijuana debris was observed in petitioner's truck and a small cube of hashish was found in his luggage. Petitioner was then formally arrested (App. 33a-34a). Alerted by the chart found on the yacht, police officers and Drug Enforcement Administration agents then went to the Mill Isle property where they found marijuana debris on the dock and a bale of marijuana under a tarpaulin near a drive connecting the cottage with the main house (App. 35a). The law enforcement officers then obtained and executed a search warrant for the Mill Isle property and found sixty bales of marijuana in the cottage (App. 36a). ' The summary of facts is drawn from the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, App. 29a-68a. 4 Petitioner was charged with importing marijuana and aiding and abetting its importation in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, possession of mari- juana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of hashish in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (App. 29a-30a). After a trial by jury, petitioner was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to concurrent maxi- mum terms of five years, five years and one year, respectively (App. 30a). At sentencing, the trial court placed primary emphasis on the fact that petitioner had not confessed his guilt and had not cooperated with the government. The court’s remarks at sen- tencing were, in full, as follows: “In determining the sentences appropriate in this case, this Court has considered with care the very comprehen- sive and thorough presentence report prepared for its consideration; it has considered the statement very ably made by the United States Attorney as to the factors which this Court should appropriately consider, and also has, of course, considered the very able statement by the defendant’s counsel, Mr. Petruccelli. “The Court has also had the benefit of having per- sonally presided at the trial of this defendant as a result of which the Jury returned its unanimous verdict of guilty under all three counts of the Indictment. “At the outset, the Court is wholly convinced that the Jury arrived at the only verdict which it could have ar- rived in this case. There is not the slightest doubt in the mind of this Court of this defendant's guilt of all three of the charges in this Indictment. The Court is further con- cerned because in light of all the information concerning the defendant which has developed at the trial and in the subsequent investigation, it is entirely evident that this 5 defendant is simply the tip of the iceberg; that he is one in what unquestionably must have been and very possibly may still be a very substantial criminal operation directed toward the importation of Marijuana and very possibly other elicit [sic] drugs into this country through the coast- line of the State of Maine. “This Court cannot in determining the sentence appro- priate in this case close its eyes to the fact that the defend- ant, despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, con- tinues to deny guilt. The first step in rehabilitation, whether it be in an institution or probationary sentence setting, is, of course, the defendant's full, frank and com- plete admission that he has done wrong and is prepared to do better in the future. “The Court also can’t close its eyes to the fact that the defendant has consistently declined to co-operate in any way with the prosecuting and investigating officials in their efforts to bring into Court all of those who are in- volved in this very substantial operation. The sums of money involved in this operation, as disclosed at the trial, [are] clearly beyond any capacity of this particular de- fendant before the Court. He is undoubtedly aware of the sources of those funds. He has consistently declined and refused to co-operate in determining what that source may be. “The Court is, of course, aware that the defendant is under no obligation to in any way incriminate himself. He was entitled to a trial. He has had a fair trial. His guilt has been determined. The Court feels compelled to impose the maximum prison term provided by the stat- utes for each of the three counts in this Indictment, in two instances including the special parole term of at least two years required by the applicable statute. The Court has considered the possibility of a young adult sentence 6 under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, but in light of the magnitude of this offense, the defendant’s evident sophistication, including, if the Court has previously not mentioned, his prior criminal record, the Court does not feel he is an appropriate subject for treatment under the Act.” (App. 64a-65a, n.18.) On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that resentencing was not required in this case. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the principle that the exercise of the Fifth Amendment rights to silence and to an appeal of a conviction cannot be burdened by imposing longer sentences when those rights are exercised (App. 66a), and also recognized that there was a difference of opinion amongst the Circuit Courts of Ap- peals “concerning the extent to which a trial court may rely upon a defendant’s failure to ‘repent’ and ‘sing’ when fixing sentence” (App. 66a). However, the Court of Appeals distin- guished the case at bar on the grounds that the trial court had not engaged in open bargaining with petitioner by expressly conditioning a reduced sentence upon confession and coopera- tion, that it could therefore be concluded that the trial court had considered the lack of repentance and cooperation only as indicative of a lack of rehabilitative potential rather than as a basis for enhanced punishment, and that reliance on the failure to confess was justified by its value as an indicator of nonreha- bilitation, citing this Court’s opinion in United States v. Gray- son, ___ U.S. ___, 98 S. Ct. 2610 (1978) (App. 6§a-67a). The Court of Appeals also relied on the fact that the trial court had articulated other reasons for the maximum sentence in ad- dition to petitioner’s failure to confess (the magnitude of the offense and petitioner’s previous conviction) which “allays any fears we might have that the sentencing decision was tainted by impermissible considerations” (App. 68a). 7 Reasons Why the Writ Should be Granted. THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY PETITIONER'S CASE IS A RECURRENT AND IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN THE ADMINISTRA- TION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND ONE WHICH HAS DIVIDED THE Circuit Courts OF APPEALS. To guarantee the rights conferred by the Constitution, the exercise of those rights must be free of penalty or punishment. In the context of the Fifth Amendment, this Court has been quick to condemn any burden placed on the free exercise of the citizen’s right not to be compelled to testify against himself, whether the penalty for refusing to waive the Fifth Amend- ment privilege be the loss of livelihood (Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967)), a procedural default at trial (Brooks v. Ten- nessee, 406 U.S. 605 (1972)), adverse evidentiary presump- tions (Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)), or direct criminal penalties (Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)). In this case, the trial court sentenced petitioner to the maximum term on each count. A principal determining fac- tor, indeed the critical factor, in the court’s decision to impose the maximum penalties was the fact that petitioner had not admitted his guilt or cooperated with the government by iden- tifying others involved in the offense. Petitioner thus “paid a judicially imposed penalty for exercising his constitutionally guaranteed rights.” Thomas v. United States, 368 F. 2d 941, 946 (5th Cir. 1966). The question which requires resolution by this Court is whether imposition of this penalty is consistent with the mandate of the Fifth Amendment. The Circuit Courts of Appeals have taken differing views of the extent to which a sentencing court may rely upon a defend- ant’s failure to confess or cooperate with the government in reaching a sentencing determination. The Third, Fifth and District of Columbia Circuits have ruled that when the de- 8 fendant’s refusal to waive his Fifth Amendment rights in- fluences the length of the sentence, a constitutionally imper- missible penalty has been imposed on the exercise of those rights and resentencing is required. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia, 544 F. 2d 681 (3d Cir. 1976); Thomas v. United States, 368 F. 2d 941 (5th Cir. 1966); Scott v. United States, 419 F. 2d 264 (D.C. Cir. 1969).2 The Second, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, on the other hand, have ruled that considera- tion of a defendant’s lack of explicit repentance does not penalize his exercise of Fifth Amendment rights, at least where a sentence substantially less than the maximum has been im- posed. These Circuits consequently have not required resen- tencing when the lack of a confession influenced the senten- cing decision. See, e.g., United States v. Floyd, 496 F. 2d 982 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied sub nom. Miller v. United States, 419 U.S. 1069 (1974); United States v. Santiago, 582 F. 2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1978); Gollaher v. United States, 419 F. 2d 520 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 960 (1969). In this case, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recog- nized the threat to Fifth Amendment rights occasioned by im- position of a longer sentence on a defendant who refuses to confess his guilt, as well as the division in the Circuit Courts of Appeals as to when an impermissible price for exercising those rights has been paid. Nonetheless, the court below aligned it- *Imposing a longer sentence based on the defendant's refusal to confess guilt impinges upon both the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and the right to an unfettered appeal. Thomas v. United States, 368 F. 2d at 945. See also, LeBlanc v. United States, 391 F. 2d 916, 918 (1st Cir. 1968). In addition, basing sentence on a lack of cooperation with the government in identifying other participants in the offense also implicates the privilege against self-incrimination, since identifying others necessarily includes ad- mitting one’s own role in the offense. United States v. Rogers, 504 F, 2d 1079, 1085 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1042 (1975). 9 self with the Second, Seventh and Ninth Circuits and affirmed petitioner's maximum sentences.° The First Circuit justified the penalties imposed on peti- tioner on the ground that when, as here, the sentencing court does not engage in an express attempt to bargain with peti- tioner or explicitly condition a lighter sentence on a confession, a distinction can be drawn between imposing a longer sentence because a defendant refuses to waive his Fifth Amendment rights and imposing a longer sentence because a lack of reha- bilitative potential is inferred from the refusal to waive Fifth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals concluded that such evidence of nonrehabilitation is useful to an informed sentencing decision, citing this Court’s recent decision in United States v. Grayson, ___. U.S. ___.,, 98 S. Ct. 2610 (1978) (hereafter cited as Grayson). In effect, the Court of Appeals has ruled that the usefulness of the evidence of nonrehabilitation derived from the lack of a coufession outweighs the penalty which is necessarily inflicted on a nonconfessing defendant's exercise of his rights if the sen- tence is enhanced on this ground. The Court of Appeals’ reasoning thus raises significant questions concerning the logi- *The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have affirmed sentences despite the in- fluence of the defendant's refusal to confess only when the sentences imposed were substantially less than the maximum. See, e.g., United States v. San- tiago, 582 F. 2d 1128 (7th Cir. 1978) (sentence imposed only one-third of the maximum); United States v. Thompson, 476 F. 2d 1196 (7th Cir. 1973) (five year sentence, ten year maximum); United States v. Lehman, 468 F. 2d 93 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 967 (1972) (three year sentence, five year maximum); United States v. Chaidez-Castro, 430 F. 2d 766 (7th Cir. 1970) (three year sentence, five year maximum); Gollaher v. United States, 419 F. 2d 520 (9th Cir. 1969) (two year sentence, five year maximum). Strictly speaking, only the Second Circuit has taken the position adopted by the First Circuit here, that no penalty for exercising Fifth Amendment rights has been imposed even though a maximum sentence has been imposed. See, United States v. Vermeulen, 436 F. 2d 72 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 911 (1971). i0 cal and constitutional validity of the distinctions it has drawn and whether this Court’s reasoning in Grayson can or should be extended to require that the protections traditionally ac- corded the privilege against self-incrimination give way to the need for this type of evidence in determining sentence. In ruling that no impermissible penalty on the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights has been imposed when the senten- cing court merely considers a defendant’s lack of repentance and does not expressly bargain for a confession in return for le- niency, the court below assumes that the implicit condition imposed by a court’s statement of its policy or intent with regard to unrepentant defendants exacts a lesser price from the defendant than explicitly conditioning leniency on a confes- sion of guilt. This assumption overlooks the logical fact that in both instances the same condition has been imposed and that the same penalty — a longer sentence — flows from the failure to meet the condition. Since the longer sentence can be avoid- ed only by relinquishing Fifth Amendment rights, the same constitutional price has been paid for exercising those rights, whether the sentencing court affords the defendant a new locus poenitens or not. The maximum sentences which follow such statements of policy or intent have, therefore, been con- sidered just as damaging to the exercise of Fifth Amendment rights as those following more overt requests for confessions. See, e.g., United States v. Hopkins, 464 F. 2d 816, 822 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (“My chief concern. . . is you don’t even have any remorse for your actions. ... The first step to rehabilitation is remorsefulness’’) .* ‘Conversely, those Circuits which have found no impermissible penalty in sentences based upon the defendant's failure to confess have done so both in cases of explicit bargaining and in cases where the sentencing court has merely considered the lack of repentance in reaching a sentencing determina- tion. Compare United States v. Chaidez-Castro, 430 F. 2d 766 (7th Cir. 1970) with Gollaher v. United States, 419 F. 2d at 529, and ('nited States v. Santiago, 582 F. 2d at 1136-1137. 11 The First Circuit’s opinion also assumes that a distinction can be drawn between imposing a longer sentence because the defendant has refused to waive his Fifth Amendment rights and imposing a longer sentence because the sentencing court infers a lack of potential for rehabilitation from the refusal to waive Fifth Amendment rights. However, for purposes of assessing the impact of a sentence on the assertion of Fifth Amendment rights, the distinction results in no practical or logical difference. In both cases, the longer sentence is ulti- mately predicated on the defendant’s refusal to waive his rights and in both cases the same price is paid for that refusal. The impact on the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights is therefore identical, whatever distinctions are drawn in the mind of the sentencing judge. The First Circuit’s reliance on the distinction between im- posing a longer sentence for exercising Fifth Amendment rights and imposing a longér sentence because the court infers a lack of rehabilitation from the refusal to waive those rights rests upon the assumption that a defendant’s refusal to confess has as much evidentiary value as an indicator of his prognosis for rehabilitation as an affirmative act of confession. However, an inference of nonrepentance cannot be drawn from the fact of nonconfession as easily as repentance can be inferred from confession. Those, like petitioner, who refuse to confess or co- operate after they have been found guilty at trial may be thoroughly penitent, but justifiably determined not to incrimi- nate themselves further — a right which is secured by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to the guilty as well as the innocent — or determined to secure review of a conviction obtained in violation of other rights guaranteed by the Con- 12 stitution.’ In short, a refusal to confess is ambiguous and can- not support an inference of nonrehabilitation. The Court of Appeals’ reliance on this Court’s decision in Grayson is therefore misplaced. In Grayson this Court found that a defendant’s willingness to lie on the witness stand at trial provided “precise and concrete” information about his character (id, at 2616), which was of sufficient value to the sentencing decision to outweigh the risk that the defendant was being punished without due process for the crime of per- jury. Id. at 2617. In this case, the refusal to confess does not, in fact, provide any information about the defendant's state of rehabilitation and therefore does not have sufficient eviden- tiary value to outweigh the punitive effect which a sentencing decision based on the lack of confession inevitably has on the exercise of a defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment. In any case, the First Circuit’s implicit assumption that the reasoning in Grayson supports a ruling that the predictive value of the refusal to confess justifies the corollary effect of heavier punishment of those who exercise their Fifth Amend- ment rights extends this Court’s reasoning in Grayson far beyond its factual and constitutional premises. The right which the defendant in Grayson claimed had been penalized by the heavier sentence was not the Fifth Amendment privi- lege, but a statutory right to testify on his own behalf or, at best, a constitutional right inferred from the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. This Court found that there was no statutory or constitutional right to testify falsely and conse- quently that no impermissible penalty had been imposed. Id. at 2618. There is thus no intimation in Grayson that the balancing analysis employed in ruling on the due process viola- * As Judge Bazelon pointed out in Scott v. United States, 419 F. 2d at 268, a defendant “could reasonably have believed that he could show penitence — real or affected — only at the price of prejudicing his appeal, if not worse.” 13 tion would be extended in general to penalties imposed on the exercise of rights specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, or that such an analysis would be extended to penalties im- posed on the assertion of Fifth Amendment rights in particular. Thus, the question of whether, as the First Circuit seems to have assumed, the rationale of Grayson can or should be ex- tended to the Fifth Amendment context remains a substantial constitutional question which should be resolved by this Court.°® In view of the continuing divergence of views in the Circuit Courts of Appeals concerning the constitutional propriety of predicating sentence on a defendant’s refusal to waive his rights under the Fifth Amendment,’ and in view of the need *The Court of Appeals found additional justification for exempting this case from the fundamental rule that a price tag may not be placed on the ex- ercise of constitutional rights on the ground that other factors in addition to petitioner's refusal to waive his Fifth Amendment rights influenced the sen- tencing decision, even though the District Court’s remarks were concerned almost exclusively with petitioner's failure to confess or implicate others as well as himself. This position is also not supported by the decisions of this Court, which have established that resentencing is required when it appears that an improper consideration has influenced the sentencing decision, even if only in part. In Townsend v, Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948), the Court ruled that prior convictions obtained without benefit of counsel could not be con- sidered in reaching a sentencing determination and remanded for resentenc- ing, since “[wJe are not at liberty to assume that items given such emphasis by the sentencing court did not influence the sentence. . ..” Id. at 740. This Court also remanded for resentencing in United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972), when it appeared that the sentence was based in part upon prior unconstitutional convictions. See also, United States v. Hopkins, 464 F. 2d 816, 822 (D.C. Cir. 1972), and United States v. Rodriguez, 498 F. 2d 302, 313 (5th Cir. 1974), requiring resentencing where the appellate court was unable to appraise the extent to which the defendant's failure to confess in- fluenced the disposition. 7In addition to the numerous cases already cited, the question has reached the Courts of Appeals on the following occasions (the list is not, however, ex- haustive): United States v. Wright, 533 F. 2d 214 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Laca, 499 F. 2d 922 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Jansen, 475 14 for clarification of the significance of this Court’s recent opin- ion in United States v. Grayson in the Fifth Amendment con- text, the petitioner's case presents a recurrent and troubling constitutional issue in the administration of criminal justice which requires definitive resolution by this Court. Cf. Link- letter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 620 (1965). Conclusion, The petition for certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH S. OTER)J, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JUDITH FARRIS BOWMAN, OTERI & WEINBERG, 10 Post Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. (617) 227-3700 December 15, 1978. F. 2d 312 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. $26 (1973); United States v. Kimbrell, 470 F. 2d 280 (5th Cir. 1972); Bertrand v. United States, 467 F. 2d 901 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Moore, 427 F. 2d 38 (5th Cir. 1970), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 965 (1970); United States v. Wiley, 278 F. 24 500 (7th Cir. 1960); cf. United States v. Floyd, 477 F. 2d 217 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1044 (1973); Williams v. United States, 273 F. 2d 469 (10th Cir. 1959). la Appendix. United States District Court District of Maine Crim. No. 77-37-SD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JACKIE DAVID MILLER December 13, 1977 George J. Mitchell, U. S. Atty., Portland, Me., for plaintiff. Gerald F. Petruccelli, Portland, Me., for defendant. | Memorandum of Opinion and Order on Defendants Motion to Suppress Gicnoux, District Judge. Presently before the Court is defendant’s motion for return of property and for suppression of evidence filed July 29, 1977 pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P.12(b)(3) and 41. An evidentiary hearing has been held, the issues have been comprehensively briefed and argued by counsel, and the following memoran- dum opinion contains the Court’s findings of fact and conclu- sions of law as required by Fed.R.Crim.P.12(g). 2a I The Facts A. Events of Friday, May 13, 1977 On Friday, May 13, 1977, at approximately 5:45 a.m., Willard Muise, an employee at the Robinhood Marina, in Ar- rowsic, Maine, noticed a yacht, the Cold Duck, fouled in one of the marina’s moorings approximately 250 yards offshore. Muise had not previously seen the craft. At about 7:00 a.m. on the same day, Muise conferred with Ralph Becker, the marina owner, who also knew nothing about the boat. Later in the day Robert Mansfield, an employee of the marina, and Becker also conferred about the boat and decided to discover the identify of the owner. To that end, Mansfield called the home port of the Cold Duck, found the marina at which it formerly had been based, and learned from personnel at the marina the name and telephone number of the former owner, Patrick Zecco. Mansfield later was able to reach Zecco, who told Mansfield that he had sold the boat to a person named Jackie Miller. At approximately 2:45 p.m. William Muise rowed out to and boarded the Cold Duck. No one was aboard, and Muise returned to the marina. Because the boat was fouled in a mooring, and since the rubber dinghy aboard the Cold Duck used to ferry people from the boat to the shore had not been used for some time, Muise told Mansfield he feared a drown- ing might have occurred. At about 3:30 p.m. Mansfield tele- phoned the United States Coast Guard station at Boothbay Harbor and advised them of the events at the marina. Mans- field then left work for the day. Sometime thereafter, the Coast Guard arrived at the marina to investigate the possibility of a nautical accident. The Coast 3a Guard notified the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Office of the incident. Pursuant to this notification, Sagadahoc County Chief Deputy Sheriff Charles Brawn arrived at the marina at approximately 5:30 p.m. No one was at the marina investi- gating the reported drowning, sc Brawn departed. Brawn re- turned to the marina around 8:00 p.m. that evennig. By that time the Coast Guard, Maine State Police, Sagadahoc County Sheriff Arthur Tainter, wardens from the Maine Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries, and marina owner Becker were at the scene probing the purported drowning. Some two to two and one-half hours after he returned to the marina (at 10:00 or 10:30 p.m.), Brawn and Coast Guard of- ficers boarded the Cold Duck in order to discover evidence of ownership. A search of the vessel was made, and the officers found a bill of sale and registration papers for the boat listing Jackie D. Miller as owner and Post Office Box 42 in Woolwich, Maine as his address of record. Later during the evening, after the search of the boat had been completed, Becker stated to several law enforcement officers that he suspected there had been some drug smuggling in the area, and he mentioned the name “Purmont.”! Brawn, however, was not a party to these conversations and did not hear any discussion of drugs or drug smuggling or any mention of the name “Purmont.” The Coast Guard later contacted the former owner, Patrick Zecco, and learned that Miller had paid $19,500 cash for the boat, mostly in small bills, which had been delivered in a brown paper bag. Miller had requested a receipt listing the purchase price as only $15,000. Everyone left the marina toward midnight. Before depart- ing, Sheriff Tainter informed the Coast Guard that he would ‘In 1974 Becker had cooperated with law enforcement officers in an in- vestigation of suspected drug smuggling activities in the area by a man named Purmont. 4a arrange for divers to be at the marina the following morning. The Sheriff's office ordered Deputy Sheriff Frederick J. White, who went on duty at midnight, to check the boat once an hour to make sure that the boat was secure and that no one was tampering with her. White did so until his shift officially ended at 8:00 a.m., May 14. B. Events of Saturday, May 14, 1977 1. Prior to the Mill Isle Visit Shortiy after midnight, Deputy Brawn attempted to tele- phone Drug Enforcement Agency (hereinafter D.E.A.) Special Agent Edward V. Drinan, Jr., the agent in charge of D.E.A, operations in Maine. Brawn suspected that the Cold Duck might be involved in drug operations allegedly taking place in Westport, Lincoln County, Maine, Brawn was unable to complete the call to Drinan.? At 12:30 a.m., May 14, without knowledge of Brawn’s ac- tions, a Coast Guard warrant officer, who had attended drug “awareness” seminars conducted by Drinan for the Coast Guard, also telephoned Drinan, The warrant officer reported the peculiar facts thus far discovered about the Cold Duck and said that he was “suspicious” of the situation, Drinan stated that he would proceed to the marina the next day, Around 4:00 a.m. Drinan received a message from the Boston D.E.A, office to call the Sagadahoc County Sheriff's Office, At 8:00 a.m., the Sheriff’s Office called Drinan, who replied that he was aware of the purported drowning and was proceeding to Robinhood Marina. Before heading to the marina, Drinan stopped at his office to pick up his handcuffs and his field kit, *Brawn’s information about drug operations in Lincoln County later proved to be erroneous. 5a which contained Miranda forms, evidence envelopes, and similar matier. Drinan at this time and at all times subse- quent was acting in his official capacity as a D.E.A. Special Agent. Toward 9:00 a.m, Deputy White returned to the marina to learn of progress in the investigation of the accident, There White met Deputy Sheriff Gordon E,. Kinney, the deputy in charge of criminal investigation, The Sheriff's Office had contacted Kinney in the event that foul play somehow had been involved in the purported drowning. At this time divers were working the waters beneath the boat and around the marina, White and Kinney boarded the Cold Duck to help Coast Guardsmen tow the boat back to the gas dock at the marina, While aboard, the men noticed several thousand dollars worth of new electronic navigational gear, which had been installed in a sloppy, unprofessional fashion, White and Kinney also noticed three to five partially burned marihuana cigarettes in an ashtray on the deck and on the flying bridge. Kinney noticed a navigational chart (Government Exhibit 8), folded so that the printed part of the chart was exposed, lying on the floor of the main cabin between a table and a bench. He spread the chart on the table and observed a pen- ciled course line on the chart threading its way from Robin- hood to a ledge located off Mill Isle. White and Kinney discussed the course in general terms and did not specifically refer to Mill Isle.? White and Kinney did not engage in a general search of the boat, and the objects they spotted on the Cold Duck were in plain view. At 9:00 a.m., Deputy Brawn arrived at the marina, After the Cold Duck was towed to the dock, while White and Kin- * Kinney testified that he had previously been to Mill Isle on May 11, 1977 in an attempt to serve papers on a man and a woman in connection with a check-cashing matter, He was unable to effect service, and the incident bore no relation to the Cold Duck affair. 6a ney were still aboard, Brawn boarded the boat. White and Kinney showed him the chart with the course line. The three speculated about possible involvement of the Cold Duck with the purported drug activities in Lincoln County. While Brawn, White and Kinney were conferring on the Cold Duck, a young man later identified as the defendant, Jackie D, Miller, drove into the marina parking lot. The time was ap- proximately 10;00 a.m, Miller's vehicle was a late model, black Chevrolet Blazer, Marina employee Muise was working in the lot at the time, Miller approached Muise, gave his name as Miller, and stated that he wished to lease a mooring for his boat, When Muise asked the defendant what type of boat he owned, the defendant pointed to the Cold Duck and noticed the law enforcement officers on her, Defendant in- quired about their presence, and Muise answered that the men had taken the boat to the dock in order to free the mooring. Muise suggested that the defendant check with the office about moorings and then walked away. Shortly thereafter Muise went down to the Cold Duck and asked if defendant had been there, Defendant had not. After procuring a description of defendant and his vehicle, Deputy White, in his Sheriff's Department automobile, and Deputies Kinney and Brawn in a separate car, left the marina to locate the defendant. In Georgetown Center White passed defend- ant heading in the opposite direction. The two had eye con- tact, and defendant accelerated rapidly, White turned around and gave chase, To catch defendant White traveled at speeds near 90 m.p.h, With his lights and siren operating, White caught up with defendant after 14% to 2 miles and tailed de- fendant for another mile at 70 m.p.h. before defendant stopped his vehicle. The road was two lanes, narrow and winding. The speed limit was unposted but was statutorily set at 45 m.p.h, Detendant produced his license and the vehicle registration for White, and in response to a question, defend- Ta ant told White that he owned the Cold Duck. Defendant agreed to accompany White back to the marina. Brawn and Kinney pulled their car in behind White on the way to the marina. At the marina parking lot, Brawn began to question defend- ant. Defendant admitted that he owned the Cold Duck, but refused to state why he had left the marina so abruptly. Brawn then read defendant his Miranda rights from White's Miranda warning card, Defendant agreed to speak without a lawyer, Sheriff Tainter next arrived. Defendant said that ownership papers were on the boat and voluntarily accom- panied Brawn and Tainter aboard the Cold Duck. Within a few minutes of their boarding the Cold Duck, shortly before 11:00 a.m., Agent Drinan arrived at the marina, was briefed by Brawn, and also boarded the boat. Drinan identified him- self to defendant by telling defendant his name, title, and reason for being at the marina, Drinan said that he had reason to believe that defendant and his boat had been en- gaged in drug smuggling activity. Drinan observed two burned marihuana cigarettes in an ashtray in the cabin. While Drinan was talking with defendant aboard the Cold Duck, White and Kinney were in the marina parking lot “ad- miring” defendant's Blazer. Deputy Sheriff Bruce E. Settler joined the two in the lot, and he too admired the vehicle. De- fendant had left open the door on the driver's side of the Blazer, As the three deputies peered in through the door to ex- amine the instrument panel, they observed what they sus- pected to be marihuana debris on the front floor of the Blazer. Settler saw more debris in the back seat area, Settler gathered debris from both parts of the Blazer, field-tested the sub- stance, and learned that it was marihuana. White then locked the automobile. White and Settler went to the Cold Duck and informed Drinan of their discovery. Drinan then told defendant he was 8a suspected of marihuana smuggling, and at Drinan’s request, Settler again read defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant stated that he understood his rights, that he did not want a lawyer at that time, and that he would be willing to answer questions. The atmosphere at this time was relaxed and casual. Defendant freely moved around the boat and pre- pared a meal while talking with Drinan. Defendant showed Drinan his bill of sale for the boat (Government Exhibit #1) and denied that he and his boat had been engaged in any wrongdoing. Drinan explained defendant’s probable sentence if he were convicted of drug smuggling. Drinan suggest that defendant could receive a lighter sentence if he cooperated with authorities, but defendant declined to do so. Drinan then told defendant that he, Drinan, was seizing the Cold Duck.‘ Defendant, Drinan, and the County officers next left the boat and returned to the locked Blazer. Although defendant claimed he did not know who owned the vehicle, he did un- lock the door and the trunk of the Blazer with his keys. In the trunk were four suitcases, which Drinan removed and placed on the ground. The first three suitcases were unlocked. With each of the unlocked suitcases, Drinan asked defendant if he owned it. When defendant replied in the negative, Drinan then asked if defendant knew who was the owner. When de- fendant again answered negatively, Drinan proceeded to search the suitcases, without any objection by defendant. The fourth piece of luggage (Government Exhibit #2) was locked with a combination lock. Defendant denied ownership of this bag as well, but agreed to work the combination and unlock it. In the fourth suitcase Drinan found a checkbook bearing the *Drinan admitted during his testimony that at the time the only basis upon which he could have seized the Cold Duck was the marihuana debris which he and the deputies had observed on board the boat. See United States v. One Clipper Bow Ketch “NISKU,” 548 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1977). 9a name of Jackie D. Miller, which defendant claimed belonged to his father, and a cube of what appeared to be hashish. Drinan field-tested the substance and found it to be hashish. He then seized the hashish, placed defendant under arrest for illegal possession of hashish, and seized the Blazer.® Following the arrest, Settler frisked defendant and found a sales receipt (Government Exhibit #3) for an industrial vacuum cleaner purchased at Sears, Roebuck & Co. on May 13, 1977. A “John Davis,” had signed the receipt as purchaser. Defend- ant at first denied knowing “John Davis,” but later admitted that he had signed the receipt. After the arrest the Blazer was thoroughly searched and a key (Government Exhibit #5), which later proved to fit the lock of the main house at Mill Isle, was found. The party then left the Blazer and returned to the Cold Duck. Pursuant to a request by Drinan, D.E.A. Agent Wayne L. Steadman arrived at the Cold Duck about 2:00 p.m. Steadman told defendant he was under arrest and had defendant read with him a Miranda rights form (Govern- ment Exhibit #4). Although defendant refused to sign the form, he stated that he understood his rights. He neither asked for a lawyer nor demanded that all questioning cease. Steadman gave defendant receipts for his boat and car and took defendant’s history. Defendant then was transported to a detention cell at the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Office in Bath. After defendant was taken to the detention cell, Drinan, Brawn and Settler drove to Woolwich to investigate the post office box address defendant had used. The officers obtained the street address from a postal employee. They found the house was empty and learned from neighbors that the occu- pant, “Jackie,” had moved out several weeks before. 5 Under cross-examination Drinan conceded that he made it clear to de- fendant that the suitcases eventually would be opened with or without de- fendant’s assistance. 10a 2. The First Mill Isle Visit On the way back from Woolwich, around 4:00 p.m., Depu- ty Brawn suggested that, because of the course line on the chart leading from the marina to Mill Isle, he, Drinan, and Settler should to to Mill Isle to see if any of the residents could add to information about the Cold Duck.® Drinan had not seen the chart on the Cold Duck and this was the first time he had heard of Mill Isle.” The officers decided to go to Mill Isle to question the occupants of the houses there to see if they had observed any unusual activity at the deep water dock located there. Upon arriving at Mill Isle the officers drove toward the chalet to question the occupants. They parked between the chalet and the dock. A telescope protruding from a trash bar- rel on the dock immediately attracted their attention. As they walked toward and onto the dock they observed substantial amounts of marihuana debris spread over the boards of the dock and in the cracks between the boards. The debris later tested as marihuana. Fresh tire tracks in the road from the dock bore distinctive markings similar to the criss-cross tread of the oversize tires on the Blazer. At the chalet the curtains were drawn and no one responded to the agents’ knocks. As *At some tirne during the morning or early afternoon hours of May 14, marina owner Becker had mentioned to Brawn his suspicions that the Cold Duck may have been associated with alleged drug smuggling activity at Mill Isle, which the D.E.A. had investigated in 1974. He also mentioned that a man named Wayland Purmont had been the subject of the investigation. Brawn testified that he paid little attention to Becker's comment, did nothing about it, and did not mention the conversation to Drinan. ’ Mill Isle is a peninsula of land connected to the mainland by a causeway. The parcel contains a dock, a chalet cottage near the dock, a main house one- quarter mile from the chalet, a barn close to the main house, and assorted outbuildings. The road across the causeway to the main house is a public road, All other roads on Mill Isle are private. lla the officers prepared to go to the main house, Brawn suggested that they take a shortcut on a woods road leading from the chalet to the main house. On this road before they reached the main house the officers spotted a large tarpaulin, which covered a bulky object located at the side of the road. Scat- tered around it were baggie twists, of the sort used to tie large trash bags, and marihuana debris. The trail was beaten down and bore tire marks matching those near the dock. Drinan lifted the tarpaulin. Underneath was a burlap bag, weighing 40 lbs., measuring 2’ x 2.5’ x 1’, with the number “43” sten- ciled in red on it. Drinan identified the object as a bale of marihuana. The contents later tested to be marihuana. Drinan placed the bale in the trunk of the car, and the agents left Mill Isle and returned to the Sheriff’s office in Bath. At Bath, Drinan showed the bale to defendant in his deten- tion cell, stated that the “stakes” had gone up, and asked de- fendant if he wished to cooperate. Defendant again declined. Drinan then left the cell and joined Brawn at the Lincoln County Courthouse, where Brawn and an assistant district at- torney prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for the premises at Mill Isle (Government Exhibit #10).° Around 8:00 p.m. Judge Paul MacDonald of the Maine District Court issued the warrant (Government Exhibit #10) to Brawn. 3. The Second Mill Isle Visit By 8:30 p.m. a search party consisting of Drinan, Brawn, Settler and several other deputies and state police officers assembled at Mill Isle. Drinan and Brawn led the search of * Brawn attached to the affidavit two photographs of Mill Isle (Govern- ment Exhibits #6 and #7) taken in conjunction with the 1974 Purmont in- vestigation, which he had found in a file in his desk. The previous occupant of Brawn’s desk at the Sheriff’s office had left the file, and Brawn had not bothered to remove it. 12a the main house. Settler and others went to the chalet. They found that the chalet was stacked waist high with over 60 bales of marihuana. Testing later proved the substance to be marihuana. There also were warehouse rollers and stands and a new Sears industrial vacuum cleaner bearing the same model number as that on the receipt which defendant had had on his person. News of this find was conveyed to Drinan in the main house. Drinan telephoned defendant at the Bath Police De- partment jail, to which he had been moved, disclosed what the authorities had found, and again asked defendant if he wished to cooperate. Defendant again refused. Completing the inventory and related matters of the search lasted until 12:30 a.m., May 15. Brawn executed the return on the war- rant (Government Exhibit #10) and filed it with the Clerk of the Maine District Court in Bath. C. Events of Sunday, May 15, 1977 Drinan returned to defendant's cell at about 1:00 a.m. on Sunday, May 15. With Drinan and defendant in one car and Steadman following behind in a second vehicle, the party left Bath to transfer defendant to the Cumberland County jail in Portland pending his arraignment before the U.S. Magistrate. During the ride Drinan and defendant engaged in small talk. They and Steadman stopped for a snack at a diner before reaching Portland. Defendant had a tuna fish sandwich and a cup of hot chocolate. Shortly after they left the diner, defend- ant spontaneously asked Drinan where he had found the first bale. Drinan refused to answer, but remarked that defendant had made a big mistake in jeopardizing a million dollar deal by returning for a $20,000 boat. Drinan next said that he did not think that law enforcement personnel had recovered all of the marihuana. Defendant replied, “Exactly. But you got a good piece of it, enough to destroy our profit.” There was a 13a pause, and defendant then stated, “Funny thing was, this was our first run.” Drinan expressed disbelief at this statement and inquired as to the source of the marihuana. Defendant said it was of good quality from Colombia. At about 10:30 a.m. defendant was checked into the Cumberland County jail. D. Events of Monday, May 16, 1977 On Monday, May 16, defendant was arraigned, with his present counsel, before the United States Magistrate in Port- land. This date was the first time that defendant sought the assistance of counsel. The arraignment proceedings were postponed until the afternoon in order to give defendant the opportunity to obtain counsel. II The Law Defendant seeks to suppress all of the evidence taken from the Cold Duck, the Blazer, the suitcase, his person and Mill Isle prior to the issuance of the search warrant on the ground that such evidence was the product of warrantless searches and seizures which were not justified by a recognized excep- tion to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. De- fendant further argues that the evidence seized at Mill Isle pursuant to the search warrant must be suppressed because Brawn’s affidavit failed to set forth sufficient probable cause to sustain its issuance, because the warrant was overbroad on its face, and because the warrant failed to comply with the terms of Fed.R.Crim.P. 41. Finally, defendant contends that his statements to Drinan in the early hours of Sunday, May 15, during their drive from Bath to Portland are inadmissible l4a under the doctrine of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) and its progeny. The evidence at issue on this motion may be classified as follows: (a) the marihuana debris, nautical chart, and bill of sale taken from the yacht Cold Duck, (b) the marihuana debris and the key taken from the Blazer, (c) the suitcase secured by a combination lock and the hashish found therein, (d) the receipt for the industrial vacuum cleaner found on de- fendant’s person, (e) the bale of marihuana, the tarpaulin, the baggie twists, and the marihuana debris discovered at Mill Isle during the afternoon of Saturday, May 14, prior to the is- suance of the search warrant, (f) the numerous bales of marihuana, the warehouse rollers and stands, the industrial vacum cleaner, and the various other items seized at Mill Isle during the evening of Saturday, May 14, after the issuance of the search warrant, and (g) defendant's statements to Drinan in the early morning of Sunday, May 15. The Court will con- sider each category of evidence seriatim. A. Items Taken From the Yacht Cold Duck At the outset, the Court reiterates the fundamental tenets of the law of search and seizure, that warrantless searches or seizures are impermissible unless justified by recognized ex- igent circumstances and that the burden rests on the Govern- ment to prove that such circumstances had existed when it at- tempts to validate a warrantless search or seizure. E.g., Cool- idge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970). It is settled that an intrusion by law enforcement officials during the course of an emergency situation qualifies as an ex- igent circumstance for which a warrant is not required. E.g., United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S, 48, 52, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. l5a 59 (1951); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 454, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948). That such an emergency ex- isted on Friday, May 13, when Brawn and Coast Guard offi- cers first boarded the Cold Duck is beyond dispute.’ A yacht unknown to personnel at the Robinhood Marina and with no one aboard was discovered fouled in one of the marina’s moor- ings. It was entirely reasonable for law enforcement officials to fear that a drowning or other nautical mishap may have oc- curred, and it was equally reasonable for them to board the boat in order to investigate the purported accident. That Kin- ney and White were lawfully investigating the same emergency when they boarded the Cold Duck on the morning of May 14 and observed the marihuana debris and the navigational chart is clearly established by uncontradicted testimony.'® The evi- dence is also uncontroverted that the two did not engage in a general search of the vessel. The officers were lawfully aboard the vessel, and the items they observed were in plain view and discovered inadvertently. On these facts, the seizure of the debris and the chart fall within the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, the criteria for which were set forth by the Supreme Court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra 403 U.S. at 464-73, 91 S. Ct. 2022. Defendant's motion to suppress these items is denied. The bill of sale for the Cold Duck likewise is admissible. Defendant voluntarily accompanied Tainter and Brawn ®Indeed, defendant so concedes in his Reply Memorandum in Suppor’ of his Motion For Return of Property and for Suppression of Evidence, at 2. '© Defendant attempts to make much of Kinney’s official designation as the deputy in charge of criminal investigation. Defendant claims that Kinney’s presence at the marina tranformed the investigation of the accident into a narcotic probe. As Kinney himself testified, however, due to the small size of the Sagadahoc County Sheriff's Department, he frequently was called upon to investigate a range of matters, both criminal and noncriminal. On the morning of May 14 Kinney was investigating a possible drowning. l6a aboard the boat, willingly furnished the bill of sale for Drinan’s perusal, and had been read his Miranda rigfits twice prior to producing the bill of sale. Defendant suggests, how- ever, that he may have acted under duress. Whether his ac- tion was in fact voluntary or was the product of duress or coer- cion is “a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances,” including the maturity of the accused, his educational background and intelligence, whether the ac- cused was informed of his constitutional rights, the length of the accused’s detention, and whether he was subject to physi- cal punishment or other forms of coercion which overboar his will. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226-27, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). No evidence was introduced that defendant was under duress when he produced the bill of sale. To the contrary, the atmosphere aboard the Cold Duck during the episode was relaxed and casual. Defendant is 4 mature, 25 year old high school graduate who had been fully informed of his rights prior to the seizure of the bill of sale. The undisputed evi- dence establishes that his actions were completely voluntary. Under well settled principles, the bill of sale is clearly admissi- ble. Schneckloth, supra at 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 593-94, S.Ct. 1256, 90 L.Ed. 1453 (1946); Zap v. United States, 328 U.S. 624, 630, 66 S.Ct. 1277, 90 L.Ed. 1477 (1946). Defendant’s motion to suppress the bill of sale is denied. B. Items Taken From the Blazer The two items found in the Blazer, the marihuana debris and the key, were taken without warrant but at different times and under different circumstances. The marihuana debris was found in the vehicle after de- fendant had returned to the marina parking lot with White l7a but before Drinan placed defendant under arrest. Defendant had left open the door on the driver's side of the Blazer when he boarded the Cold Duck with Tainter and Brawn. While “admiring” the vehicle, White, Kinney and Settler spotted the debris on the front floor through the open door. The discovery of the debris was inadvertent and not the result of a search of the car. See Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968). No privacy expectation of the defendant was violated when the three deputies saw the debris through the open door and removed a sample from the Blazer. As the Supreme Court consistently has noted, an in- dividual has a lesser expectation of privacy with respect to a motor vehicle than he enjoys with regard to his person, his home, or repositories of his personal effects. E.g., United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 3, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (June 21, 1977); Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974) (plurality opinion); Cham- bers v. Marroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). Defendant further lessened this diminished privacy expectation by leaving the vehicle unlocked and the door open. The debris was in plain view to anyone standing in the parking lot near the open door. The deputies’ presence in the parking lot was permissible, and the officers’ discovery of the marihuana debris was inadvertent. The debris is admissi- ble under the plain view doctrine. Coolidge v. New Hamp- shire, supra 403 U.S. at 464-73, 91 S.Ct. 2022; Harris v. United States, supra. The key to the lock of the main house at Mill Isle was found in the Blazer after Drinan had arrested defendant for illegal possession of hashish and after he had seized the vehicle. The search of the vehicle was clearly proper as incident to the ar- rest. Gorman v. United States, 380 F.2d 158, 162 (1st Cir. 1967), and cases there cited. See also Chambers v. Maroney, 18a supra 399 U.S. at 46-52, 90 S.Ct. 1975. Moreover, as a D.E.A. agent, Drinan possessed statutory authority to take the Biazer into custody without a warrant because of its use in the transportation of controlled substances — the marihuana debris and the hashish which had been found therein. 21 U.S.C. §§ 878(4), 881(b)(1), (4); United States v. One 1972 Chevrolet Nova, 560 F.2d 464 (1st Cir. 1977). It has been consistently held that warrantless searches of vehicles appro- priately taken into custody are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367-76, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 61-62, 87 S.Ct. 788, 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967). On either basis, the key is admissible in evidence. Defendant’s motion to suppress the marihuana debris and the key found in the Blazer is denied. C. Combination-lock Suitcase and Hashish Therein The admissibility of the locked suitcase and the hashish discovered therein pivots on whether defendant validly con- sented to Drinan’s removal of the suitcase from the Blazer and his search of the contents. A locked piece of personal luggage carries with it a high expectation of privacy, and a warrantless intrusion into such a repository of personal effects must be justified by consent or some similar circumstance. United States v. Chadwick, supra, 433 U.S. at 11, 97 S.Ct. 2476. The Court is satisfied that under the tests propounded in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, defendant's behavior in permitting Drinan to remove and examine the suitcase was wholly voluntary. Defendant willingly unlocked the Blazer in which the suitcase had been stored and worked the combina- tion lock of the bag himself. He did so after twice being ap- prised of his Miranda rights. The fact that Drinan indicated to defendant that law enforcement officials eventually would open the suitcase with or without defendant's consent cannot 19a be viewed as interfering with defendant's free will in any way. Both before and after this incident, defendant demonstrated his capacity to exercise independent judgment through his decisions not to answer various questions and not to comply with certain requests of law enforcement officials. The suit- case and the hashish are properly admissible as the product of a valid consent search. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424-25, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed. 2d 598 (1976); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra; Davis v. United States, supra; Zap v. United States, supra; Gorman v. United States, supra at 163-64, 165. Defendant's motion to suppress the suitcase and hashish is denied. D. Receipt Taken From Defendant's Person The search of defendant's person and the seizure of the receipt for the industrial vacuum cleaner found on his person are justified as incident to a lawful arrest. Drinan’s arrest of defendant after discovery of the hashish plainly was legal. Drinan had sufficient probable cause to arrest defendant for il- legal possession of hashish, and he obtained the evidence upon which probable cause was based through a valid consent search. The Supreme Court has thoroughly established the authority of law enforcement officers to search a person inci- dent to a lawful arrest. E.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S, 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). Defendant's motion to suppress the receipt is denied, E. Items Taken From Mill Isle Prior to the Issuance of the Search Warrant The legality of the taking of the marihuana debris the tar- paulin, the baggie twists, and the marihuana bale from Mill 20a Isle prior to the issuance of the search warrant raises two ques- tions, The first is whether Drinan, Brawn and Settler appro- priately visited Mill Isle without a warrant and the second is, if so, whether the items they found were discovered as the result of an unlawful search and seizure. The evidence presented at the hearing consistently demon- strates that the three officers first went to Mill Isle in order to question residents there about the Cold Duck. None of the testimony suggests that the officers intended to conduct a search of the premises or were operating under any other im- proper motive, It is firmly established that a police officer who in the performance of his duty enters upon private prop- erty to ask preliminary questions of the occupants thereof does not commit an illegal search. E.g., United States v. Hersh 464 F.2d 228, 229-30 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Knight, 451 F.2d 275, 278 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 965, 92 S.Ct. 1171, 31 L.Ed.2d 240 (1972); Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303 (9th Cir. 1964). Thus, the initial entry onto the Mill Isle peninsula was for legitimate purposes and did not constitute an illegal search. Since the presence of the three officers at Mill Isle was legal, the objects which they found are admissible provided that the “plain view” standards of Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, are met, There is no question that the marihuana debris scat- tered between the boards on the dock falls within the ambit of the plain view doctrine. Drinan, Brawn and Settler had just parked their vehicle between the chalet cottage and the dock when the telescope in the trash barrel reasonably drew their attention to the dock, Their discovery of the marihuana debris, in plain view on the dock, was completely accidental and unplanned, The discovery of the marihuana debris, the baggie twists, the tarpaulin and the marihuana bale on the unpaved road running between the chalet and the main dwelling was simi- Qla larly inadvertent. With the exception of the bale itself, all of these latter items were in plain view. As for the marihuana bale, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Fourth Amendment questions in the context of privacy-oriented standards, E.g., United States v. Chadwick, supra 433 U.S. at 11, 97 S.Ct. 2476; Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351-53, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Applying these standards, the Court is persuaded that defendant suffered no invasion of privacy when Drinan lifted the tarpaulin off the bale. Unlike the double-locked foot-locker involved in United States v. Chadwick, supra, a tarpaulin is not a repository of personal effects enjoying a high degree of protection against intrusion. Nor was the bale of marihuana found in a place, such as a private dwelling, usually free from intrusion by indi- viduals other than the owner of the property. It was dis- covered lying by a woods road open for use by anyone passing from the dock to the main house.'' Moreover, the bale was not secured from intrusion in any meaningful way. It was not locked in a trunk or stamped with labels warning unauthorized people to keep away but merely was draped with a tarpaulin. Clearly, the condition and location of the bale was such that defendant could not have had a justifiable expectation of pri- vacy with respect to its discovery by persons lawfully passing along the woods road. Cf. United States v. Hanahan, 442 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1971). The marihuana bale, as well as the tarpaulin, the baggie twists, and the marihuana debris found by the officers at Mill Isle on the afternoon of May 14 were reasonably seized and are admissible in evidence. Defendant's motion to suppress these items is denied. ''There is no evidence that “No Trespassing” signs were posted on the premises at Mill Isle. 22a F. Items Taken From Mill Isle Pursuant to the Warrant. Defendant's objections to the admissibility of the items taken from Mill Isle during the evening of May 14 pursuant to the search warrant are threefold. None have merit. (1) Defendant initially argues that the affidavit underlying the search warrant failed to set forth sufficient probable cause to sustain the issuance of a warrant authorizing a search of the buildings at Mill Isle. Specifically, defendant contends that Brawn’s affidavit does not allege facts to link the marihuana bale found by the road with any of the buildings on the prem- ises, The courts have consistently compared the level of probable cause necessary to support a warrant with a reasonable belief standard and have not equated the existence of probable cause with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. E.g., Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); Vitali v. United States, 383 F.2d 121, 122 (1st Cir. 1967); Rosencranz v. United States, 356 F.2d 310, 314 (1st Cir. 1966) (probable cause only means evidence sufficient “to persuade a man of reasonable caution to believe a crime is being committed”). Furthermore, the magistrate reviewing the application for the warrant “is entitled to draw reasonabi. inferences from the facts contained in the affidavit based on his experience in such matters.” Rosencranz v. United States, supra; United States v. Spearman, 532 F.2d 132, 133 (9th Cir. 1976). Based on the facts alleged in the affidavit, on the photo- graphs appended to the affidavit showing the relationship of the road where the marihuana bale was found to the two dwellings, and on the reasonable inference which the magis- trate was entitled to draw that a smuggler would attempt both to protect contraband from the elements and to hide it from police authorities by placing it in » building, the affidavit 23a clearly sets forth adequate probable cause to authorize is- suance of the warrant to search the main house, the chalet, the barn and the outbuildings at Mill Isle. As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965): If the teachings of the Court’s cases are to be followed and the constitutional policy served, affidavits for search warrants, such as the one involved here, must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a common- sense and realistic fashion. They are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investiga- tion. Technical requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common law pleadings have no prop- er place in this area. A grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts towards warrants will tend to discour- age police officers from submitting their evidence to a judicial officer before acting. (2) Defendant also contends that the warrant was invalid because it was overbroad on its face. Defendant relies prin- cipally on United States v. Voteller, 544 F.2d 1355 (6th Cir. 1976), for the proposition that the warrant was too broad since did not “particularly describe” the buildings at Mill Isle to be searched and the probable cause for searching each struc- ture, The Votteller opinion, however, is inapposite and clear- ly distinguishable on its facts from the present case. The de- fective warrant in Votteller pertained to a multi-use, three- story building with apartments in the basement and on the second and third floors. The affidavit linked possible criminal activity only to the bar on the first floor. The Court held the warrant invalid for failure to particularize the place to be searched. 24a The question of sufficient particularity turns on whether the objects or buildings to be searched are described with the degree of clarity necessary so that the investigating officer will not search buildings, objects, persons or dwellings other than those for which probable cause sustaining the search exists and other than those which the magistrate contemplated when he issued the warrant. The purpose of the particularity require- ment is to curb a general search unsupported by probable cause. E.g., Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 55-60, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967); Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 480-86, 85 S.Ct. 506, 13 L.Ed.2d 431 (1965). In the in- stant case, the warrant authorized a search of the buildings on Mill Isle as described in Brawn’s affidavit: the main dwelling, the barn, the chalet and several small outbuildings. Because of the geographical isolation of Mill Isle, the common knowl- edge that it was a single parcel of real estate, the proximity of the buildings to be searched, the spatial relationship of the marihuana bale and the debris found during the first visit to those buildings, and the description of the buildings contained in Brawn’s affidavit and shown in the accompanying photo- graphs, it cannot be doubted that the warrant described with sufficient precision the objects of the search. Cf. Houser v. Geary, 465 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1113, 93 S.Ct. 927, 34 L.Ed.2d 696 (1973); United States v. Hassell, 427 F.2d 348, 349 (6th Cir, 1970).'* '? Defendant appears also to contend that the warrant was defective be- cause it failed to specify the exact quantity of marihuana to be sought. This argument borders on the frivolous. As the court stated in United States v. Scharfman, 448 F.2d 1352, 1354 (2d Cir. 1971), “The Fourth Amendment requirements do not impose a burden on the executing officer ‘beyond his power to meet’.”” A requirement that the exact amount of contraband being sought be specified in a warrant would impose an impossible burden on the officers. Such a result is clearly not contemplated by the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Scharfman, supra; United States v. Fuller, 441 F.2d 755 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 830, 92 S.Ct. 73, 30 L.Ed.2d 59 (1971). 25a (3) Defendant’s final challenge to the warrant stems from the dual State-federal nature of the investigation. The war- rant was issued as a State warrant by a State court judge to a State law enforcement officer on State grounds and was re- turned by a State officer to a State court, all in accordance with State rules. See Me.R.Crim.P. 41. It is undisputed, however, that the warrant aided a federal investigation, that federal law enforcement officers actively participated both in obtaining the warrant and in its execution, that no State prose- cution has resulted, and that the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is being employed in a federal prosecution. The search was therefore a “federal search,” see Lustig v. United States, 338 U.S. 74, 69 S.Ct. 1372, 93 L.Ed. 1819 (1949); Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520 (1927), and the Court will assume for purposes of the pres- ent decision that, as defendant contends, the warrant was governed by the federal standards embodied in Fed.R.Crim.P. 41. See United States v. Burke, 517 F.2d 377, 381-87 (2d Cir. 1975); United States v. Sellers, 483 F.2d 37, 41-44 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 908, 94 S.Ct. 2604, 41 L.Ed.2d 212 (1974); United States v. Haywood, 150 U.S. App.D.C. 247, 251, 464 F.2d 765, 760 (1972); Navarro v. United States (1), 400 F.2d 315 (5th Cir. 1968). Defendant correctly notes that the search warrant did not comply with the requirements of Rule 41(c) in three respects: 1) the warrant was not addressed to a federal officer; 2) the warrant did not specify the time (not to exceed ten days) with- in which the search was to be completed; 3) the warrant failed to require that it be returned to a federal magistrate. Defend- ant argues that the failure of the warrant to comply with the requirements of Rule 41(c) in these respects renders inadmissi- ble the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.'* Defendant 'SDefendant also argues that the evidence obtained under the warrant cannot be used in a federal prosecution because the affidavit did not allege 26a does not contend, however, that the violations of Rule 41(c) are of constitutional magnitude, and when a warrant in a joint State-federal search has been issued under valid authority," the courts have refused to exclude evidence obtained under the warrant, despite technical noncompliance with Rule 41(c). United States v. Burke, supra; United States v. Sellers, supra. The argument here anade by defendant was raised and re- jected by the court in United States v. Burke, supra. Burke in- volved a State warrant issued by a State court judge in aid of a federal investigation. The warrant failed to conform to the re- quirements of Rule 41(c) in precisely the same three respects as the warrant in the instant case. Although the court found that the three provisions which had been violated reflected “‘a Rule-embodied policy designed to protect the integrity of the federal courts or to govern the conduct of federal officers’” (emphasis in original), id. at 385, the court held that the defects in the warrant were not of sufficient consequence to justify exclusion of the evidence. The court noted that, despite the technical defects in the warrant, a federal officer in fact assisted in its execution, the search was made on the same day probable cause to believe that a federal crime had been committed, This argument was specifically rejected by the court in United States v. Sellers, supra, which emphasized that federal and State officers acting jointly “should be free to make a considered choice based on the best available infor- mation and unencumbered by merely technical procedural rules.” Jd. at 44. '* Defendant cites Navarro v. United States (1), supra, and United States v. Haywood, supra, for the proposition that violation of Rule 41 triggers the ex- clusionary rule, Navarro held that the failure of law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant from “a judge of a state court of record,” as required by Rule 41 (a), required exclusion of the evidence obtained pursuant to the war- rant. See also United States v. Haywood, supra (dictum). As Judge Friendly observed in Burke, however, “the defect [in Navarro] was basic; since the issuing judge was not of ‘a state court of record’, there was in effect no war- rant at all for federal purposes.” /d. at 385. In the present case, it is uncon- troverted that the warrant was issued by a judge of a court of record of the State of Maine. 27a as the warrant was issued, and the return was made on the fol- lowing day to the issuing court by the State officer. Judge Friendly, writing for the court, concluded that, except in a case like Navarre, where the violation was found to be of con- stitutional dimensions, “violations of Rule 41 alone should not lead to exclusion unless (1) there was ‘prejudice’ in the sense that the search might not have occurred or would not have been so abrasive if the Rule had been followed, or (2) there is evidence of intentional and deliberate disregard of a provision in the Rule.” Jd. at 386-87 (footnotes omitted). See also United States v. Sellers, supra. The facts in the instant case precisely parallel those of Burke. The Rule 41 violations are plainly not of constitutional * magnitude, and this Court agrees with Burke that they were not of sufficient consequence to justify the use of the exclu- sionary rule. Defendant has introduced no evidence to suggest that the failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 41(c) prejudiced him in the sense that the search might not have oc- curred or would not have been so abrasive if the Rule had been followed. Nor is there any evidence of an intentional and deliberate disregard of a provision in the Rule. The Court concludes that the warrant was valid despite the technical violations of Rule 41(c). Defendant's motion to suppress the bales of marihuana, the warehouse rollers and stands, the industrial vacuum cleaner and the other evidence seized at Mill Isle during the evening of Saturday, May 14, pursuant to the search warrant is denied. G. Defendant's Statements to Drinan on Sunday, May 15 The admissibility of defendant’s inculpatory statements to Drinan in the early morning hours of Sunday, May 15, during the trip from Bath to Portland, depends wholly on the volun- tariness of defendant's waiver of his right to remain silent. 28a Miranda v. Arizona, supra 384 U.S. at 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602. At no time during the events of Saturday, May 14, or in the course of the ride from Bath to Portland early the next morning did defendant ask that he be allowed to consult with counsel or request that all interrogation of him cease. The evidence produced at the hearing revealed that defendant willingly made the statements to Drinan and that he had not been sub- ject to coercion or duress of any sort. Law enforcement of- ficials treated defendant in an exemplary manner throughout. Defendant had not been threatened or physically abused. He was not suffering from prolonged lack of sleep when he spoke with Drinan, and he had eaten a light meal which Steadman had bought him just prior to talking to Drinan. Tellingly, it was defendant, not Drinan, who initiated the conversation. Prior to defendant’s departing Bath with Drinan, law en- forcement officers on three separate occasions had informed defendant of his Miranda rights. Neither the fact that defend- ant was last read his rights several hours prior to the drive to Portland nor the fact that defendant refused to sign a written waiver of his rights taint the voluntariness of defendant's waiver. United States v. Rogers, 504 F.2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Osterburg, 423 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 2166, 26 L.Ed.2d 571 (1970); United States v. Speaks, 453 F.2d 966, 968-69 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1071, 92 S.Ct. 1522, 31 L.Ed.2d 804 (1972); United States ». Van Dusen, 431 F.2d 1278 (1st Cir. 1970). Defendant’s waiver of his right to remain silent was a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision. The state- ments he made to Drinan are admissible. Defendant's motion to suppress the statements is denied. Defendant's motion for return of property and for suppres- sion of evidence is in all respects denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. 29a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit No. 78-1093 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. JACKIE DAVID MILLER, DEFENDANT, APPELLANT. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE {[Hon. Edward T. Gignoux, U.S. District Judge] Before Coffin, Chief Judge, Kunzig,* Judge, U.S. Court of Claims, Dumbauld,** Senior District Judge. Martin G. Weinberg, with whom Joseph S. Oteri, Judith F. Bowman, Oteri & Weinberg, Jeanne Baker, David J. Fine, and Rosenberg, Baker & Fine, were on brief, for appellant. George J. Mitchell, United States Attorney, with whom Paula D. Silsby, Assistant United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee. November 15, 1978 Corrin, Chief Judge. A jury found appellant guilty of im- porting and possessing with intent to distribute more than * Sitting by designation. ** Of the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 30a 3000 pounds of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952(a), 960(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2. The jury also convicted him of possession of 2 grams of hashish. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). The district judge sentenced appellant to the maximum term in prison for each of the three offenses, 5 years for each of the first two offenses and one year for the third, the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant now challenges some aspect of virtually every stage of official interference with his enter- prise: the searches of his boat, car, and land; the use at trial of his admissions of guilt; the admission of evidence of the size of his enterprise; the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for importation; the charge to the jury explaining reasonable doubt; and the considerations supporting the trial court’s imposition of maximum sentences. The relevant facts add up to a substantial narrative. Each cluster of facts pro- vides one or more occasions for an exercise of judgment by one or more of several law enforcement agencies. All such deci- sions are attacked on appeal. Some issues were not preserved; some are close questions. We conclude our necessarily lengthy analysis by affirming. THE Facts We set forth in this preliminary statement the events neces- sary to put each of appellant’s arguments in context. Elabora- tion essential for the disposition of particular issues appears subsequently. On Friday, May 13, 1977, at approximately 5:45 a.m., an employee of the Robinhood Marina in Arrowsic, Maine, no- ticed a yacht, the COLD DUCK, fouled in one of the marina’s moorings about 250 yards offshore. The boat had never been seen in Arrowsic before and no one had arranged to rent the mooring. By mid-afternoon employees of the marina decided 3la to investigate. One employee rowed out and boarded the boat. He found no one on board, the rubber dinghy, used to ferry mariners ashore, still in the cockpit, and a partially eaten meal on the stove. Meanwhile, another employee called the boat’s home port and learned that the boat had recently been sold to one Jackie Miller. After conferring, the employees called the Coast Guard to report a suspected drowning. The Coast Guard visited the marina and notified the Saga- dahoc County Sheriff's Office. By 8:00 p.m. the Coast Guard, Maine State Police, Sheriff's Office, Maine State De- partment of Sea and Shore Fisheries and the owner of the ma- rina had all arrived to investigate. At approximately 10:30 p.m. Chief Deputy Sheriff Charles Brawn and Coast Guard officers boarded the COLD DUCK. They found a bill of sale and registration made out to Jackie D. Miller, P. O. Box 42, Woolwich, Maine. They left the boat. The Coast Guard then called the former owner of the boat and learned that Miller had paid $19,500 cash in small bills for the boat and had asked for a receipt showing a price of $15,000. The Sheriff's Office assumed responsibility for hiring divers to search the area for bodies at first light, and all officials left the area around midnight. Deputy Frederick White was as- signed to make an hourly visual check on the boat during the night. Shortly after midnight, Deputy Brawn tried to tele- phone Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Ed- ward Drinan, who heads DEA operations in Maine. Brawn suspected the COLD DUCK might be involved in drug smug- gling operations being investigated in Lincoln County. In- dependent of Deputy Brawn, a Coast Guard warrant officer who had attended “drug awareness” seminars conducted by Drinan succeeded in reaching the agent and informed him about the COLD DUCK. At 9:00 a.m. Deputy White and Deputy Gordon Kinney met at the marina. Divers were already searching the waters 32a around the boat. Kinney and White boarded the COLD DUCK to help the Coast Guard in clearing the boat from its fouled mooring lines and towing it to a marina slip. While aboard, the deputies noticed several thousand dollars worth of new electronic navigational equipment which had been in- stalled in a sloppy, unprofessional manner. They also noticed a number of roaches (partially burned marijuana cigarettes) in ashtrays on the deck and the flying bridge. Perusing the main cabin for more information about where the owner might have gone, Kinney noticed a navigational chart lying on the floor, folded so that the printed part of the chart was exposed. He spread the chart on the table and observed a penciled course threading its way from the marina to a ledge located off of Mill Isle, a secluded peninsula located in Arrowsic near the confluence of the Sasanoa and Back rivers. White and Kinney did not engage in a general search of the boat. When the boat was secured to the dock, Deputy Brawn boarded it to discuss the situation with White and Kinney. They showed him the chart and the three discussed the possi- bility that the boat was involved in drug smuggling in the area. At about the same time, appellant drove into the ma- rina parking lot in a late model, black Chevrolet Blazer. Ap- pellant approached Willard Muise, a marina employee work- ing in the lot, identified himself, and stated that he wished to lease a mooring for his boat. When Muise asked what type of boat Miller owned, appellant pointed to the COLD DUCK and noticed law enforcement officers on her. Appellant in- quired about their presence and Muise explained that the men had brought the boat to the dock in order to free the mooring. Muise then suggested that appellant check with the main of- fice about renting a mooring and left the lot. A few minutes later Muise went down to the COLD DUCK and asked if appellant had been there. He had not. Muise provided a description of appellant and his vehicle, and wit- 33a nesses in the lot reported that he had recently departed, ap- parently in a hurry, The three deputies set out in two cars to locate appellant. Deputy White proceeded alone to George- town Center where he passed appellant going in the opposite direction. The two had eye contact and appellant accelerated rapidly.! White immediately turned and gave chase, at speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour. White caught up with ap- pellant in about two miles and, with lights and siren operating, tailed appellant for another two miles before ap- pellant stopped his vehicle. Appellant produced his license and registration upon request and admitted that he owned the COLD DUCK. White then escorted appellant back to the marina, driving his police car behind the Blazer. At the marina parking lot, Brawn began to question appel- lant, and, after appellant again admitted owning the COLD DUCK, Brawn read him his Miranda rights. Appellant agreed to speak without a lawyer. Appellant then stated that his ownership papers were on the boat and voluntarily accom- panied Brawn and Sheriff Tainter in boarding her. Agent Drinan arrived a few minutes later and, after being briefed by Brawn, boarded the COLD DUCK. Drinan identified him- self to appellant and explained that he suspected appellant had been engaged in drug smuggling. He observed two roaches in an ashtray on the boat and proceeded to discuss the situation with appellant. Meanwhile, back in the parking lot, Deputies White, Kin- ney, and Setlar were standing around “admiring” appellant’s Blazer through the door that appellant had left open. They noticed marijuana debris on the floor of the vehicle, field ‘As further detail may be relevant, we note that although the Deputy’s vehicle was unmarked, it did possess a flashing light, Deputy White was in uniform, and appellant, sitting high in the Blaze. , could look down and into the Deputy’s car. 34a tested the substance, locked the vehicle, and apprised Drinan of their discovery. Drinan informed appellant that his suspi- cions were growing, and appellant was again informed of his Miranda rights. Appellant remained relaxed and casual, mov- ing freely about the boat preparing a meal, answering general questions and refusing to answer when he so willed. Drinan suggested that appellant cooperate and explained maximum sentences for the crimes appellant might have committed. Ap- pellant remained calm and denied any involvement with smuggling. Drinan then seized the COLD DUCK. The parties then returned to the locked Blazer in the lot. Al- though appellant claimed he did not know who owned the vehicle, he unlocked it with his keys. Drinan removed four suitcases from the vehicle. When Drinan asked about the lug- gage, appellant disclaimed any ownership or knowledge of the suitcases. Drinan then searched the luggage, without any ob- jection from appellant. The fourth piece was locked with a combination lock. Although appellant denied ownership of the suitcase, he stated that he knew the combination and un- locked it. In the case was a cube that a field test proved to be two grams of hashish. Drinan placed appellant under arrest for possession and seized the drug and the Blazer. Deputy Setlar then frisked the appellant and found a sales receipt for an industrial vacuum cleaner, sold on May 13 (the day before) to a John Davis. Appellant later admitted he had signed the receipt using the false name. The Blazer was then thoroughly searched and a key, which later proved to fit the lock of the main house at Mill Isle, was found. Officers then went over a Miranda rights form with appellant, who stated that he understood his rights but would not sign the form. Ap- pellant was then transported to a holding cell at the Sagadahoc County Sheriff's Office in Bath. Drinan, Brawn, and Setlar then drove to Woolwich and, having obtained the street address that corresponded with ap- 35a pellant’s post office box, found an empty house and neighbors who reported that “Jackie” had moved out several weeks before. Brawn then suggested that, based upon the course marked on the chart, appellant might be connected with Mill Isle. The officers decided to go to Mill Isle® to question the oc- cupants of the houses there to see if they had observed any unusual activity at the deep water dock located there. Upon arriving at Mill Isle the officers drove toward the chalet to question the occupants. They parked between the chalet and the dock. A telescope protruding from a trash bar- rel on the dock immediately attracted their attention. As they walked toward and onto the dock they observed substantial amounts of marijuana debris spread over the boards of the dock and in the cracks between the boards. The debris later tested as marijuana. Fresh tire tracks in the road from the dock bore distinctive markings similar to the criss-cross tread of the oversize tires on the Blazer. At the chalet the curtains were drawn and no one responded to the officers’ knocks. As they prepared to go to the main house, Brawn suggested that they take a shortcut on a woods road leacing from the chalet to the main house. On this road before tuey reached the main house the officers spotted a large tarpaulin, which covered a bulky object located at the side of the road. Scattered around it were baggie twists, of the sort used to tie large trash bags, and marijuana debris. The trail was beaten down and bore tire marks matching those near the dock. Drinan lifted the tarpaulin and found a forty pound bale of marijuana. Drinan seized the bale. *Mill Isle is a peninsula of land connected to the mainland by a causeway. The parcel contains a dock, a chalet cottage near the dock, a main house one- quarter mile from the chalet, a barn close to the main house, and assorted outbuildings. The road across the causeway to the main house is a public road. All other roads on Mill Isle are private. 36a The officers then returned to Bath. Drinan again ques- tioned appellant, telling him that the “stakes had gone up”. Appellant declined to cooperate. Drinan then obtained and, with the help of local officers, executed a warrant to search the buildings on Mill Isle, In the chalet the officers found 60 bales of marijuana, a set of warehouse rollers and stands, and a new industrial vacuum cleaner matching the one bought by appel- lant the day before. Drinan telephoned appellant from Mill Isle, explaining what had been found, and again asked appellant’s coopera- tion. Appellant declined. After completing the search, Drinan returned to Bath to transport appellant to Portland for arraignment. On the way, the two stopped and had a light meal. Shortly after they left the diner, appellant spontaneous- ly asked Drinan where he had found the first bale. Drinan refused to answer, but remarked that defendant had made a big mistake in jeopardizing a million dollar deal by returning for a $20,000 boat. Drinan next said that he did not think that law enforcement personnel had recovered all of the mari- juana. Defendant replied, “Exactly. But you got a good piece of it, enough to destroy our profit.” There was a pause, and defendant then stated, “Fun thing was, this was our first run.” Drinan expressed dish ..ef at this statement and in- quired as to the source of the marijuana. Defendant said it was of good quality from Colombia. Subsequent investigation revealed that appellant had leased the Mill Isle property for $26,000, signing the lease on behalf of a fictitious organization named Carlisle Estate Ventures Ltd. Appellant, again in the name of Carlisle, had paid $15,000 to exercise an option to purchase the property for $260,000. Within two weeks prior to his arrest appellant had purchased a 48 foot ocean-going vessel named the HARVARD for $17,400. A bill of sale for the HARVARD was found in the main house at Mill Isle. Appellant was a 25 year old unem- 37a ployed high school graduate with no ascertainable capital resources. SEARCH AND SEIZURE ISSUES We begin our discussion of Fourth Amendment issues with the fundamental premise that warrantless intrusions violating reasonable expectations of personal security and privacy are per se unreasonable. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). Several of the searches involved in this case raise ques- tions about the definition of “reasonable expectations of privacy”. Others are defended as being within the few excep- tions to the protection provided to reasonable expectations of privacy, which exceptions are “jealously and carefully drawn”. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455 (1971). Some of these searches give us no pause; others merit close analysis. A. The Navigational Chart Appellant first challenges the boardings and examinations of his boat, the COLD DUCK, that led to the seizure of a navi- gational chart. We have no difficulty approving the first boarding on the evening of May 13. At that point, a boat of unknown origin had been abandoned at a mooring belonging to another person, where it remained for over twelve hours, fouled in its lines. A boat, like an automobile, carries with it a lesser expectation of privacy than a home or an office. Cham- bers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).? A boat, even more than an automobile, By so saying, we do not intend to imply that all of the doctrinal gloss ap- plicable to automobiles is also applicable to boats. Nor do we purport to 38a becomes a matter of legitimate concern to public safety of- ficials when it is found abandoned, 250 yards from shore, its dinghy still on board. The responsibility of state officials for the safety of property was triggered by these circumstances. See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441 (1973) (state of- ficials’ “community caretaking functions” for vehicles involved in accidents). More important, the circumstances justified a reasonable fear of injury to life and limb, specifically a drown- ing. Such a combination of “community caretaking functions” and possibly exigent circumstances amply justified intruding upon the limited privacy expectations surrounding an abandoned vessel in order to determine ownership of the boat and the safety of its mariners. Cf. Michigan v. Tyler, U.S. ___, 46 U.S.L.W. 4533 (May 31, 1978) (exigent cir- cumstances allow warrantless intrusion to perform ad- ministrative function). The following morning, Deputies White and Kinney board- ed the COLD DUCK for what developed into a more exten- sive search. Because the officers had a duty to deal with aban- doned property, see Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, the board- ing itself was justified by the need to clear the vessel of its fouled moorings and secure it to a nearby dock, as the owner of the mooring desired. The search that took place during and deal with such specialized craft as houseboats or vessels obviously used as homes. But it has long been recognized that boats, like automobiles, are sub- ject to frequent limited intrusions by regulatory and safety officials. Such limited intrusions as warrantless safety and document checks of vessels are undoubtedly constitutional, United States v. Warren, (No. 75-4368, 5th Cir. 1978) (slip op. 6596) (en banc); and the mobility of an ocean vessel in many ways exceeds that of a car, justifying warrantless intrusion without probable cause for customs inspection far from the technical borders of the United States. United States v. Ingham, 502 F. 2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 911 (1975). Given such characteristics, the privacy expec- tations of a boat owner are necessarily limited. See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441 (1973). 39a after the securing of the vessel, however, presents a more substantial question.‘ It was this search that yielded the chart that led the officers to Mill Isle and the marijuana. Hours before this search, both the sheriff's department and the Coast Guard had each called in the DEA. The deputies noticed marijuana cigarettes and poorly installed electronic equip- ment soon after boarding the boat. We find it hard to believe that they did not smell a smuggler soon after, if not before, they boarded the boat. If these facts, and no others, were presented to us, we would be hard pressed to approve the sei- zure and use of the chart. The Fourth Amendment does not countenance warrantless “exploratory rummaging” on every unattended vessel that smells of smuggling. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 467. We are not, however, faced with a clear case of exploratory rummaging. Rather, three factors enable us to say that the search by White and Kinney was constitutional, despite the lack of a warrant. First, the district court found as a fact that a legitimate non-criminal purpose, investigation of a drown- ing, motivated White and Kinney’s search. Second, the court found that the search was limited in scope to that purpose. Ap- pellant argues that we must reject these findings as clearly er- roneous, in the main because the sheriff's department had an address for the owner of the boat. We cannot agree that where there is an emergency need to obtain information in a non-criminal investigation the authorities are limited to pur- suing one clue.> Moreover, divers in the employ of the sheriff's ‘Appellant argues at length that the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that the deputies seized the chart before the boat was towed in. The record is admittedly unclear as to when the chart was found, but in view of our decision concerning the legality of the search as a whole, we find it un- necessary to decide exactly when the chart was discovered. 5Indeed, had the authorities restricted their search to investigating the Woolwich post office box address, they would have found themselves with 40a department were searching for bodies in the waters around the COLD DUCK at the same time that White and Kinney con- ducted their search. Such is clear evidence that a drowning investigation was being conducted. The third factor is the Court’s teaching in Michigan v. Tyler, supra. In Tyler, the Supreme Court sanctioned the ini- tial warrantless, non-criminal search for evidence of the cause of a fire. Just as fire officials have a duty to seek the cause of a fire, the deputies in this case had a duty to seek the explanation for, and possible victims of, an apparent nautical mishap. In Tyler, such a search was permissible without a warrant for so long as the possible rekindling of the fire created an exigent situation. The circumstances of this case were equally, if not more exigent. Even more than the possible resurgence of the fire in Tyler, the tides of Maine made it likely that the object of the search, a body, would disappear if the search were de- layed. Moreover, if exigent circumstances justify warrantless entry and seizure of evidence of arson, which evidence is in- evitably criminal, then an emergency certainly justifies entry and seizure of a navigational chart, relevant to a possible drowning, which by happenstance later proves to be incrim- inating.® Cf. United States v. Warren, (No. 75-4368, 5th Cir. 1978) (slip op. at 6596) (en banc) (permissible for Coast Guard inspection boarding to develop into criminal search). an empty house, no further information on the apparently lost mariners, and several hours lost. ®Nothing in Mincey v. Arizona, US. , 46 U.S.L.W. 4737 (No. 77-5353, June 21, 1978) is to the contrary. Mincey dealt with a proffered “homicide scene” exception to the warrant requirement where there was no possibility that injured victims still needed aid and where all victims of the incident had been located. Mincey expressly distinguished the situation in the instant case. Finally, Mincey dealt with a four-day, minute search of a dwelling; we deal with a brief examination of a vessel constantly subjected to official contact. 4la To summarize, appellant’s limited expectations of privacy in the COLD DUCK, already minimized by its abandonment at an unauthorized mooring, were not violated by entry pur- suant to a reasonable belief that an emergency required an im- mediate search. The owner of the vessel had been missing long enough to trigger a reasonable belief of danger to life and limb and not so long as to make the proffered emergency a mere pretext. The resulting search was “strictly circum- scribed by the exigencies that justif[ied] its initiation.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-26 (1968). The chart was in plain view on the floor of the cabin. Its discovery was inadvertent. Opening it up was not exploratory rummaging, but rather went directly to the purpose of the officers’ presence. See Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927). Asin Michigan v. Tyler, it was self-evidently relevant to the non-criminal purpose of the investigation (finding the mariners) and there- fore need not be self-evidently incriminating in order to fit squarely within the plain view exception articulated in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra. B. Detention of Appellant for Questioning As noted above, Deputy White apprehended appellant after a high speed chase beginning in Georgetown Center and end- ing some four miles later. Appellant now claims that when he drove his Blazer back to the marina, with Deputy White es- corting from behind, he was already subject to arrest and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Appellant also argues that the events at the marina, which led to appellant’s formal arrest, are tainted as the fruit of an illegal arrest. As a preliminary matter, we lack, perhaps understandably, a ful! analysis below of the facts and law pertaining to the ini- 42a tial detention of appellant.’ We note that appellant did preserve the issue in his suppression argument. At oral argu- ment on the suppression motion, the government took the po- sition that the precise nature of the initial detention (inves- tigative stop or full arrest) was irrelevant since Deputy White had probable cause for arrest. At oral argument on appeal the government refused to concede that Deputy White needed probable cause for arrest to justify the detention under the Fourth Amendment, but failed to offer us an alternative standard for evaluating what was clearly more than a brief in- vestigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). We therefore rely on the record and the few facts found con- cerning the initial stop. The record reveals that after stopping appellant, Deputy White asked for and received his license and registration. After appellant, in response to questioning, identified himself as the owner of the COLD DUCK, Deputy White asked him to return to the marina for questioning. There is no evidence that appellant objected. Nevertheless, the deputy retained appellant's license and registration during the drive back to the marina. This testimony was uncontra- dicted.® Given this testimony, the trial court stated in its finding of facts that the appellant “agreed” to accompany the deputy back to the marina. Because appellant was most cooperative with the authorities in the ensuing discussions at the dock, we could easily credit this finding of consent, had the deputy not retained the license and registration. Appellant could not "Given the number of challenges made by the appellant and the limited argument addressed to the original stop, we are not surprised by and cannot fault this single omission. *The record does not support the government's contention at oral argu- ment that appellant may have consented prior to seizure of his license and registration. Deputy White's testimony on the sequence of events is to the contrary. 43a lawfully operate his vehicle without those papers. He was not free to go. Although the line between an investigatory stop and an arrest has yet to be fully defined (see, e.g., United States v. Worthington, 544 F. 2d 1275, 1281-88 (5th Cir. 1977) (Goldberg, J., dissenting)), when appellant was so significant- ly deprived of his liberty of movement for a substantial time, this was, if not an arrest, closer along the detention spectrum to an arrest than to an investigatory stop. See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); United States v. McCaleb, 552 F. 2d 717, 720 (6th Cir. 1977); United States v. McDevitt, 508 F. 2d 8, 11 (10th Cir. 1974); United States v. Maslanka, 501 F. 2d 208, 213 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied sub nom. Knight v. United States, 421 U.S. 912 (1975). Such in- vestigatory detention requires more justification than the founded suspicion underlying a brief stop. Davis v. Mississip- pi, supra, 394 U.S. at 726-27; see United States v. Brignoni- Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). In the absence of any argument that an intermediate procedure falling between a stop and an arrest was either intended or authorized here, we must reject the government’s position that probable cause for arrest was not required to justify the detention. The government also argues that Deputy White had prob- able cause to arrest appellant for either of two crimes, speeding and unlawfully furnishing a scheduled drug. Al- though Maine statutes provide the usual plethora of regu- lations relating to the operation of motor vehicles, 29 M.R.S.A. § 1252(4) (West 1978) does not make speeding criminal until the operator exceeds the statutory limit by thirty miles per hour or more. As we have noted, appellant accelera- ted rapidly as soon as he saw Deputy White driving in the op- posite direction in Georgetown Center. The speed limit at that point was 35 miles per hour. Deputy White immediately turned around and gave chase. The trial court found that the deputy travelled two miles at 90 miles per hour in order to 44a catch up with appellant and then paced appellant at 70 miles per hour for another two miles. The unposted statutory speed was 45 miles per hour. Thus, appellant argues that on the face of the record, Deputy White lacked 5 miles per hour to justify a speeding arrest. We think the matter is not so simple. The statute author- izing warrantless arrests in these circumstances, 15 M.R.S.A. § 70 (West 1965 & Supp. 1978), directs a deputy to “arrest and detain persons found violating any law of the State... .” The word “found” has been interpreted to require that the of- fense be committed in the presence of the officer. United States v. O'Donnell, 209 F. Supp. 332 (D. Me. 1962). In State v. Cowperthwaite, 354 A. 2d 173 (Me. 1976), the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has interpreted the presence require- ment as allowing arrest where the facts confronting an officer give him probable cause to believe that the offense is being committed. An officer may draw reasonable inferences from the immediate observations of his senses. Id. Applying this rule to the facts in this case, we find that Deputy White was statutorily and constitutionally authorized to arrest the ap- pellant for speeding. Although the deputy never clocked the appellant at speeds 30 miles per hour in excess of the statutory limit, the deputy did know how much head start the appellant had and did know that speeds of 90 miles per hour, at first in a 35 miles per hour zone, were needed to catch the appellant. Probable cause for arrest does not require the quantum of proof necessary to convict. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965). Under the standards governing Deputy White’s conduct, “the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer. . . were sufficient to warrant a pru- dent and cautious man in believing that the arrested person had committed” the offense of speeding. State v. Fletcher, 288 A. 2d 92, 97 (Me. 1972) (quoting State v. Smith, 277 A. 2d 481, 488 (Me. 1971)). 45a Appellant next argues that even if Deputy White had prob- able cause to arrest for speeding that such an arrest would be patently pretextual. This court has stated in the context of traffic arrests that lead to information about more serious crimes: “[W]hile we do not say that there could never be an egregious situation where an arrest on purely colorable grounds might be held invalid as ‘pretextual’, cf. Tag- lavore v. United States, 291 F. 2d 262, 265 (9th Cir. 1961), the validity of an arrest is normally gauged by an objective standard rather than by inquiry into the officer's presumed motives. If this were not so, an arrest’s validity could not be settled until long after the event; it would depend not only on the psychology of the arresting officer but the psychology of the judge.” United States v. McCambridge, 551 F. 2d 865, 870 (lst Cir. 1977). We acknowledge that McCambridge is distinguishable from the instant case insofar as the arresting officer in McCam- bridge had no suspicions about more serious crimes at the time of the traffic arrest. Nevertheless, we feel that founded suspi- cions that a person has committed one crime do not disable an officer from making a probable cause arrest based upon the operation of a vehicle during guilty flight from the officer's reasonable attempts to question that person. The Fifth Cir- cuit has upheld a traffic arrest on facts very similar to those in the present case. United States v. Maslanka, 501 F. 2d 208, 213 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1974). We agree with its reasoning that a traffic arrest after a high speed chase, even where the cause of the chase is founded suspicion of a more serious crime, is clear- ly distinguishable from the case of officers having mere suspi- 46a cions who carefully lie in wait until a minor traffic infraction gives them a pretext to confirm their suspicions. In the same vein, the cases cited by appellant to support his “pretext” argu- ment (e.g., United States v. Montgomery, 561 F. 2d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1977) involved officers acting without articulable facts to support any suspicion and using registration checks (not arrests for crimes) as pretexts for searches. As explained more fully below, Deputy White had nunierous facts to support his suspi- cions, had every reason to give chase, and in the process was presented with completely independent probable cause to ar- rest for speeding. Even if our construction of Maine traffic statutes should prove faulty, we think that Deputy White nevertheless had probable cause to arrest appellant — for drug trafficking. Viewed in isolation, the individual facts known to the deputy may have been consistent with innocent explanations, but taken as a rapidly-developing whole, the facts justifying ap- pellant’s apprehension were consistent with good, constitu- tional police work.® The deputy knew that a large yacht had recently been purchased, for cash in small denominations, by a man who had asked for two receipts showing different prices for the boat. He could reasonably infer that not only did the new owner not want to be traced but also that the new owner wanted to deceive someone about the amount of cash he had available. White knew that the new owner had recently in- stalled expensive long range navigation equipment in a sloppy fashion. He could reasonably infer that the owner planned to or had made an ocean voyage and was in a hurry. On that *We note in passing that, unlike the state law relating to most warrantless arrests, the special statute then governing warrantless arrests for drug posses- sion and trafficking did nm require the offense to be committed in the presence of an officer. See i17-A M.R.S.A. § 1113 (West Supp. 1978) (re- pealed by P.L. 1978 ch. 671 § 26). State law governing Deputy White's authority to arrest without a warrant expressly required only probable cause. 47a boat was a chart showing a course approaching Mill Isle, a secluded location with a deep water harbor suitable for smug- gling and located near an area already under investigation as a smuggler’s port, plus evidence of recent use of small amounts of marijuana, not in and of itself a crime but grounds to sup- port an inference that the boat was involved with drug traffic. This suspicious craft had been abandoned at night at an unauthorized mooring and had been unclaimed for more than 24 hours. Then the owner arrived. Rather than investigate the presence of uniformed officers on the vessel he had so caresessly left behind, the owner sped away in what can only be characterized as guilty flight. Finally, upon seeing a uniformed officer observing him in Georgetown Center, the owner once again fled the authorities, speeding down a wind- ing road past the entrance to the marina. At this point, Depu- ty White had not seen more than 1% ounces of marijuana associated with the defendant,'° but these facts were sufficient to warrant a reasonable and prudent man’s belief that ap- pellant had been engaged in “furnishing” under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1106(3), if not a more serious crime. Attempting to minimize the cumulative impact of these facts, appellant cites cases holding that arrest at an airport of persons meeting the DEA’s “drug courier profile” is not sup- ported by probable cause. See United States v. McCaleb, 552 F. 2d 717 (6th Cir. 1977). The simple answer to appellant's contention is that this case presents “profile plus”. “The ele- ment missing in McCaleb and present in the case at bar is a reasonably inferred tie-in with unlawful trading in narcotics.” United States v. Canales, 572 F. 2d 1182, 1186 (6th Cir. 1978) (finding founded suspicion for Terry stop). Had the defend- ants in McCaleb been associated with a suspected smuggling '© Possession of less than 1% ounces of marijuana is not a criminal offense under Maine statutes. 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381. 48a operation and then twice fled from the authorities, we feel certain that the resolution on the probable cause issue would have been different. The importance of flight or other behavior signifying guilt as a final link in a chain of probable cause is underscored in a number of cases. See United States v. Maslanka, supra; Defino Martone v. United States, 396 F, 2d 229 (1st Cir. 1968); United States v. Brown, 457 F. 2d 731 (ist Cir. 1972); United States v. Berkowitz, 429 F. 2d 921 (1st Cir. 1970). C. The Fruits of the Blazer Appellant next objects to the admission of evidence seized from his vehicle while it was parked at the marina. As ex- plained above, upon reaching the marina in the company of Deputy White, appellant left his truck and boarded the COLD DUCK. There he had a lengthy conversation with DEA Agent Drinan. Deputies White, Kinney, and Setlar re- mained in the lot, admiring the truck. Appellant had left the door open on the driver's side. The deputies observed mari- juana debris on the carpeting. The deputies closed and locked the truck and apprised Agent Drinan of their observations. After discussing the possible penalties for smuggling with ap- pellant, Drinan seized the COLD DUCK. Drinan and ap- pellant then left the boat and appellant unlocked the truck. Drinan searched four suitcases found in the back of the vehi- cle. Having discovered hashish in one of the suitcases, Drinan placed appellant under formal arrest and seized the vehicle. A thorough search of the vehicle ensued and yielded a key, which was later found to fit one of the locks on Mill Isle. Ap- pellant objects to the admission of the debris, the hashish found in the suitcase, and the key. We treat each item separately. 49a 1. The Marijuana Debris Appellant’s arguments on this issue give us little difficulty. Appellant had a very limited expectation of privacy in his truck. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970). App [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2215%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.