Opposition Brief — Jackson v. United States

w

tt

- ON PBTITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

an the Supreme our of te wit Sines

Ocrone® Tenm, 1970 ats aCe ae /

"No, 245

* : aie ih a oe eee ;

WILLie Calvin JACKSON, PETITIONER-————

Unvrrep Srares or AMERICA: ~

gp’. © 8

’ STATES COURT OF a ALS FOR THE NIN ils CIRCUIT

~—Te lis THE. UNITED STATES IN Gages

‘

<

After a ‘fury trial: in the Gaited States Distr ‘ek: ae *

Court for the Distr ict . of Arizona,,. petitioné® and a.

co-defendant, Macias,» were convicted of importing | = 7

heroin, in violation-“of- 21 US. C: 174. Petitioner was- .’ ss *

sentenced to five: years’ imprisonment (R. 73-74). Thee @& 7.0.0

court of appeals affirmed. (Pet. App. 25-30). :

“1. The _evidenge. is outlined: in the opinion of the

court of appeals (Pet. App. 26-27). .It showed that

one Romney, the owner- operator of a motel logated i in

Nogales, Arizona, had informed Customs agent. Swind-

ler that at about 9:00 p.m: on January 9, 1968, a man,

: claiming to be travelling on foot and without an auto-

mobile, had rented :a room. for two hours under the

name “Louis Brown”. After registering, = man was, ees

a a o ; :

; a) .-:

~_398-036—70 Se

=

~ seen parking an automobile (subsequently checked-out

as registered to petitionar) in front. of the room as-

| signed to him and entering the room, Within a shirt °

permod of time, a Mexican male arrived at the motel,

_ went into the room occupied by “ Brown and remained

—“—

* for less than an-hour:.’

On January 30, +1968, petitioner, thonght by the

“motel operator to be the. person who had previously

registered as. ‘‘Brown,”’ registered at the motel-under ”

‘ the name ‘‘James Snith,’’ stating at. the time that he’

5 &

‘ had no vehicle. However, he was seen parking the

same automobile ‘observed on Januar y 9, 1968, in front:

of the room given him. (‘T, 72-73, see also T. 30, 37,

40, 48). Again -the motel owner contacted Customs

agent Swindler, who immediately came -over to the

motel - with other agents and set. up a surveillance.

Soon thereafter, petitioner ioe ceived an outside tele- |

phone call, emerged fromhis room and drove off, fol- |

lowed by the. Customs agents. (H. 6-8, 12; T. 79-85).°

‘Within. 25-30 yards from tlie motel, petitioner

‘i picked up a man ‘identified at tii lal as*Macias (‘T. 154-

155). ‘The two: men first, drove e ona circuitous route!

through the border town of Nogales. (T. 115-120, 145-

146, “155-1 56), and -then headed out of town on the

main highway, going ‘nortAbout 14 miles from the

horder, agent. Swindler. pulled alongside petitioner’s

Tt was stipulated. at trial that one Emmett Walters had ac-

companied petitioner to: Nogales on January 9, 1968 and: had

registered at the motel as “Louis Brown.” W: stags testified that

he had met with a Mexican male at thé noes to pay. him for

providing Walters with a prostitute. The petitioner, according

“to W alters was asleep-in his car outside the. motel. (T. 277-283).

*“H.” refers to’ hearing on petitioner's motion to suppress;

“T.” refers to the tranecrip of trial.

.

~

*.,

Fatt

-

>

automobile and turned on a red ‘light (‘T. 86) ; the

other agents to -petitioner’s rear turned on sirens (‘T.

121). According to Swindler, petitioner's car continued

‘at the same-speed and then slowed. (T. 86); Another

agent testified -that petitioner’s car moved to the- edge

‘of the road and the right door opened and closed (T.

anid Petitioner thereupon accelerated to 80° m. 2m,

_ (he had previously been driving at a rhaximum speed

of 60 m.p.h.), at which point Swindler forced the car”

off the road (‘T. 86-87).

After identifying themselves as ‘Customs’ agents,

Swindler and fellow agent -Cavitt ordered the two men

out of the car and frisked them for wei xpons. Cavitt

then returned to the othér agents who were searching

the edge of the highway ‘in the area where. the car door

had been opened. On learning that nothing had been

found, Cavitt rejoined Swindler and: began to search

the front of the ear. At that point, petitioner asked for

a sweater from the back seat of the car. (E, 88) When

Gavitt reached for ‘the sweater, he discovered a pack-

oe

age on tlie right rear floor of the car, which, on examin: \-

tion, he determined to be heroin (T. 160-161).

2. Petitioner contends that the ‘se: welt of his auto-

mobile was unlawful because. the agents did ‘not have

probable atuse tof arrest lim at ‘the time they

3 Both petitioner and Macias Diced that the door had been,

opened. Jackson, testifying, on his own behalf, stated that

Macias opened the, door and threw “thesstuff” out (‘T. 321-322,

326). Macias, who did not festify in his own defetise, eee

a witness who testified that in jail petitioner had said that upon’

seeing the red light, he threw’ something at ; Macias and fold

him to get rid of it (T. 390-394).

_ 4 z _ “< . F ~

5 4

sought to stop his car by use of sirens and a flashing red

light. This argument misconceives the investigative

authority of customs officers in. these circumstances.’

_As the court ‘below: pointed out, while the agents’ sus-

--picions did not at that point amoimt to probable

cause, there was reason to suspect that “the oce —

«wf the car might be carrying imported contraband,’

_ and thus proper justification *‘to stop the car for the

purpose of questioning its occupants to resolve tlfose

suspicions’? (Pet. App. 28-29)» See Terry v. Ohio,

392 US. 1, 20-23. See. also Rios v. United States,

364 U.S. 253, 261-262; Wilson v. Porter, 361 F. 2d -

412, 415 (C.A. 9). It was the immediate response to

this legitimate attempt to. stop the automobile—that

“is, the opening and closing of the car door in an ap-

parent attempt to throw something out and the sub-

sequent. acceleration to 80 m.p.h—which transformed ie

. the agents’ mere suspicions into sufficient probable cause

to support the arrest of petitioner and his companion

(see Sibron v. New York 392 U.S: 40, 66-67) and the

search of fhe vehicle (ef “Chambers y. Maroney, decided

June 22, 1970 (No. 830, O.T., 1969) ).

* As the court below pointed out (Pet. App. 26 n. 2), the Cus-

toms agents’ activities did not rest upon their specific authority

regarding border searches (see, e.g., 19 U.S.C. 482) but rather

to arrest and search under 26 U.S.C. 7607.

* As the trial court pointed out, the road being travelled by

petitioner and his companion was “the gateway of all this ©

narcotic business into Arizona” (see Pet. App. 28). This Court

has long recognized that’ in cases involving smuggling notice

may be taken of public facts and geographic positions. Carroll

v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 159-161; The Apollon, 9 Wheat 362,

374.

,

wo

'S

Petitioner’ s reliance upon Henry v. United States,

361 U. S. 98, is misplaced since in that case the |

“movements [of those] in.the-car had no mark of |

fleeing men or men acting furtively.”” Henry, supra, ©

at’ 103. In the instant case, petitioner’s conduct prior

to the agents’ attempy to detain him for questioning ;

vaised founded suspicions warranting investigation.

In. attempting to frustrate this investigation, peti-

tioner ‘and his companion ‘engaged in ‘conduct char-

acteristic of narcotics smugglers attempting to de-

stroy evidence and escape, thereby providing the of-

, ficers with probable cause for the arrest and search.

It is respectfully submitted that the petition for a

"writ of certior ari should be denied.

_ Erwin N, Griswo.b,

Solicitor General. °

_ Juvty 1970.