United States v. Frank Sorce, James Falco, Thomas Malloy
325 F.2d 84 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not extend to 'open fields,' allowing law enforcement to enter publicly accessible commercial areas without a warrant. Observations made in such areas can establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest if they lead a prudent person to believe a crime is being committed.
Facts:
- A trailer containing a shipment of J. C. Higgins Camp Tents, consigned by Hawthorne Finishing Company to Sears, Roebuck, was stolen in Chicago on April 20, 1962.
- On May 8, 1962, federal agents observed defendants Falco and Malloy loading cardboard cartons into a truck at the Blue Top Turkey Farm.
- The agents followed the truck, driven by Falco, and an accompanying car with Sorce and Malloy, to the Ten Acre Garden Center, an open-air nursery.
- At the nursery, agents watched the three defendants unload the cartons, strip the merchandise out of them, and begin burning the empty cartons.
- The merchandise was placed on the ground, and Malloy was seen putting some of it into a shed.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants Sorce, Falco, and Malloy were charged in District Court with possession of goods stolen from an interstate shipment.
- Before trial, the defendants filed a timely motion to suppress the tents as evidence, arguing they were obtained through an unlawful search and seizure.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a bench trial (trial by judge, without a jury), the District Court convicted the defendants.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless arrest and subsequent seizure of evidence violate the Fourth Amendment when federal agents observe defendants handling and attempting to destroy packaging of what appears to be stolen merchandise in an open-air business accessible to the public?
Opinions:
Majority - Kiley, Circuit Judge
No. The warrantless arrest and subsequent seizure of evidence did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the agents had probable cause to believe a crime was being committed in their presence. The agents' entry into the Ten Acre Garden Center, an 'open air nursery,' was lawful under the 'open fields' doctrine established in Hester v. United States, as the Fourth Amendment does not protect such areas. After legally entering, the agents observed cartons with labels clearly identifying them as the stolen Sears, Roebuck shipment. This observation, combined with the defendants' suspicious conduct of stripping and burning the cartons, provided sufficient probable cause for a warrantless arrest. The seizure of the tents was therefore constitutional as a search incident to a lawful arrest. This case is distinct from Henry v. United States, where incriminating evidence was only identified after the arrest.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the scope of the 'open fields' doctrine, extending its application to publicly accessible commercial properties like an open-air nursery. It clarifies that observations made in such locations do not constitute an unlawful search and can be used to establish probable cause. The case serves as a key example of how the totality of circumstances—including prior knowledge of a crime, observation of suspicious behavior, and plain-view discovery of evidence—can justify a warrantless arrest and a subsequent search incident to that arrest. The court's distinction from prior precedent based on the timing of evidence identification provides a critical lesson for analyzing the sequence of events in Fourth Amendment cases.
