From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Sihler

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 4, 1977
562 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1977)

Summary

holding that defendant consented to a search by entering prison where warning sign advised that persons entering were subject to search

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Scroggins

Opinion

No. 77-5171. Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

November 4, 1977.

John R. Martin, Asst. Public Defender, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

Wm. L. Harper, U.S. Atty., Robert A. Boas, Jeffrey B. Bogart, Asst. U.S. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.



Appellant Sihler, an employee at the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, was convicted in a federal district court for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1970). Sihler claims that his conviction is infirm because it was based upon the fruits of a warrantless search by prison officials. The government was permitted to show that after the marijuana was seized Sihler was advised of his Miranda rights and subsequently admitted that he was to be paid $500 to distribute the marijuana among prison inmates. We reject Sihler's contentions that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and affirm.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Sihler had been an employee at the prison since October 1970. On June 29, 1976, Henry J. Cox, a special intelligence supervisor at the penitentiary, received information from a reliable and credible informant that Sihler would be bringing narcotics into the prison on the following day. Cox had previously received information that Sihler had been involved in smuggling contraband to Atlanta inmates. In consequence of this information, Sihler was stopped as he entered the penitentiary on June 30, 1976 carrying a brown paper "lunch bag." He was immediately brought to the Warden's conference room to meet with prison and FBI officials. Once in the room, Sihler was advised that he was suspected of dealing in narcotics and that he was going to be searched. His response to this was "Well, all right go ahead." His lunch bag was opened and the marijuana was uncovered. At that point he was advised of his Miranda rights whereupon he confessed to his smuggling role.

Although Sihler argues that the informant's tip did not provide probable cause for the warrantless search, we find it unnecessary to resolve that issue. It is established that a search conducted with one's consent need not meet the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and we are convinced that the search here was conducted with Sihler's consent. The record before us indicates that for at least nine months preceding the search a large sign was maintained on the main entrance door to the prison. The sign read,

While, generally, searches and seizures conducted without the benefit of warrants or probable cause are violative of Fourth Amendment proscriptions, e. g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), there are, however, a few carefully delineated exceptions. Among these exceptions is the search based on the consent of the person being searched. See e. g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Pena, 542 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1976).

WARNING

ANY PERSON WHO INTRODUCES OR ATTEMPTS TO INTRODUCE ANY ITEM NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THIS INSTITUTION INTO OR UPON THIS INSTITUTION PROPERTY SHALL BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1971 [1791], ALL PERSONS ENTERING UPON THESE CONFINES ARE SUBJECT TO ROUTINE SEARCHES OF THEIR PERSON, PROPERTY OR PACKAGES.

This sign was of approximately two feet by two feet in dimension and was prominently displayed at eye level on the front door of the penitentiary. Sihler passed through this door almost every day as he reported for work. He had been advised upon his hiring that he was not to bring any contraband into the prison. The record additionally demonstrates that Sihler, at the time of this incident, had earned 87 college credits and spoke fluent English. Furthermore, Sihler admitted that on several occasions during his tenure as a prison employee he had heard of instances where persons entering the prison were routinely searched. Under these circumstances in which Sihler voluntarily accepted and continued an employment which subjected him to search on a routine basis, we find that the search in question was made with his consent. Although the consent was required, it was nonetheless freely and voluntarily given and not the product of coercion. Cf. Mason v. Pulliam, 557 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1977).

Requiring such consent as a condition of employment, and therefore access to the prison, seems to us to be a reasonable security measure. It is no less reasonable in a prison than in any other governmental facility where to gain access one must submit to routine searches. E. g., United States v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863 (5th Cir. 1977). In Ellis, a panel of this court concluded that a Naval Air Station restriction requiring a visitor to consent to a routine search was a valid condition to entry. In that case the defendant was given a visitor's pass which recited that acceptance of the pass manifested the guest's consent to being searched while on the base. We can see no less justification for requiring such consent as a condition for gaining access to a federal penitentiary. See Lanza v. State of New York, 370 U.S. 139, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962).

For present purposes we need not go as far as one court did in holding that a prison employee is entitled to abide no expectation of privacy while on prison grounds. See United States v. Kelley, 393 F. Supp. 755 (W.D.Okl. 1975).

Because we find that Sihler consented to the instant search and that the consent was a reasonable condition of his employment the presence or absence of probable cause behind the search is of no moment. We note in passing Sihler's argument that even if he had consented to a routine search he did not consent to a specific one. This contention is without merit. It is anomalous indeed for one to contend that he consents to purely arbitrary searches and not to searches based on some degree of suspicion or probable cause.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Sihler

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 4, 1977
562 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1977)

holding that defendant consented to a search by entering prison where warning sign advised that persons entering were subject to search

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Scroggins

In United States v. Sihler, 562 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1977), the former Fifth Circuit considered a situation similar to the instant one, where a federal penitentiary employee was suspected of smuggling narcotics into the prison.

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Esser

entering prison

Summary of this case from McGann v. Northeast Illinois Reg. Commuter R.R

In Sihler, we upheld the search of a prison employee's brown paper lunch bag on the ground of consent, both explicitly given by the employee and inferred from a sign at the prison gates warning that all persons entering would be subject to routine searches.

Summary of this case from Thorne v. Jones

justifying employee's search before entering prison where consent, although required, was voluntarily given and was not the product of coercion

Summary of this case from Clifford v. Harrison Cnty.

In Sihler, a prison employee passed a sign each day which warned him against introducing contraband into the facility and informed him that all persons entering the facility were subject to search.

Summary of this case from Russ v. GEO Grp., Inc.

warning sign to visitors entering penitentiary that they are subject to search

Summary of this case from Cherry v. State

In United States v. Sihler, 562 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1977), a sign on the main prison entrance warned of prosecution for bringing in contraband.

Summary of this case from Clark v. State

In United States v. Sihler, 562 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1977), a prison employee was found to have consented to a search by entering the prison in the face of a sign which advised that all who entered were subject to routine search.

Summary of this case from State v. Martinez

In United States v Sihler, 562 F.2d 349 (CA 5, 1977), the warrantless search of a prison guard was upheld based on his consent.

Summary of this case from People v. Whisnant

In United States v Sihler (562 F.2d 349), the Fifth Circuit of the Court of Appeals upheld a less intrusive search of a prison guard, wherein a quantity of marihuana was found in his brown paper lunch bag.

Summary of this case from People v. Saunders
Case details for

United States v. Sihler

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. CLIFFORD GEORGE SIHLER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Nov 4, 1977

Citations

562 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1977)

Citing Cases

Wells v. State

Officials searching for contraband in some penal institutions may conduct pat-down searches of guards. United…

U.S. v. Woodrum

The cab passenger is not like someone who visits a prison and so "consents" to certain special prison…