these men carried with them a satchel of counterfeit notes and that the purpose of their being there was to deliver this counterfeit money to Low.
To be sure, the arresting agents could not see what transpired in the dark interior of the informant's car.
However, they observed Low leave his car and get into the informant's car, remain there five minutes or so and then return to his own car with the satchel, and when they arrived at Low's car to make the arrest, they could see the satchel on the seat of the car. These observations were sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for a belief that Low had taken possession of the counterfeit notes. Certainty is not demanded. The fruits of the subsequent search were not essential to the establishment of reasonable grounds for such belief. Therefore, cases which hold that an arrest is not justified by what a subsequent search discloses are not in point. Cf. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 103, 80 S. Ct. 168, 4 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1959); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S. Ct. 222, 92 L. Ed. 210 (1948).
The defendant further contends that this arrest was unlawful because the agents had ample time to secure an arrest warrant. In support of this position, the defendant cites the language of Chief Judge Learned Hand in the case of United States v. Coplon, 185 F.2d 629, 632, 635, 28 A.L.R.2d 1041 (2d Cir. 1950) to the effect that the arrest, being without warrant, was not lawful because "no sudden emergency forced the hand of the agents * * *." The defendant's reliance on this case is misplaced, however, since the decision turned on the language of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3052 which, as of the date of that decision, made it lawful for F.B.I. agents to arrest without warrant "for felonies cognizable under the laws of the United States, where the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested is guilty of such felony and there is a likelihood of his escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest." But § 3056, as amended, which gives secret service agents the power to arrest without warrant, contains no reference to, or requirement of, the likelihood of escape.
There is nothing in the statutory language of § 3056 to support the interpretation that secret service agents have the power to arrest without warrant only when confronted with the likelihood of an escape. Moreover, there was a likelihood that Low could escape since he was in his private automobile.
We conclude that in taking the defendant Low into custody, the agents had reasonable grounds to believe that Low was then committing a felony, that reasonable grounds for anticipating escape in his automobile existed, and that in all the circumstances, the defendant's arrest without warrant was lawful. United States v. LaMacchio, supra; United States v. Bianco, supra, 189 F.2d p. 722.
The defendant also contends that the seizure of the satchel from his automobile was illegal and that the use in evidence against him of the contents thereof should be suppressed. Having found that the arrest of the defendant was lawful, we also find that the search and seizure, being incident to a lawful arrest, were not unreasonable. "When a man is legally arrested for an offense, whatever is found upon his person or in his control which it is unlawful for him to have and which may be used to prove the offense may be seized and held as evidence in the prosecution." Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 158, 45 S. Ct. 280, 287, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925). More recently the Court has said "[The] search incident to arrest may, under appropriate circumstances, extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises under his immediate control." Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 151, 67 S. Ct. 1098, 1101, 91 L. Ed. 1399 (1947). Here, the agents seized a revolver and a satchel which were found on the seat of the car adjacent to where the defendant had been sitting when he was arrested. These were taken to the secret service office where the satchel was properly opened by the agent in charge. Cf. United States v. Bianco, supra.
The defendant was in the secret service office at this time.
Moreover, the satchel and the counterfeit money in it "were not property the ownership or possession of which the law protects. See Brinegar v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879. * * * [The money and satchel] were contraband, subject as such to seizure without warrant and over the possessor's objection. * * * 49 U.S.C.A. § 781(b)(3)." United States v. Troiano, 365 F.2d 416 (3d Cir. July 22, 1966).
We find no facts which support the suppression of this evidence as the fruits of an unreasonable search and seizure. To the contrary, we find: (1) the search and seizure were incident to a valid arrest; (2) the place of the search was a vehicle being used to further an unlawful purpose; (3) the search was confined to an area under the immediate and complete control of the defendant; and (4) the possession of the counterfeit notes was a crime and objects utilized in perpetrating the crime were properly subject to seizure. What is a reasonable search and seizure is not to be determined by a fixed formula. The reasonableness of a search must find resolution in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 63-64, 70 S. Ct. 430, 94 L. Ed. 653 (1950).
Low further moves for the suppression of all statements made by him during the course of his custodial interrogation by the agent in charge, Usher, in the secret service office. During the period he was in custody, it is undisputed that the defendant did not have an attorney present. We believe that all statements made by Low after he was taken into custody, whether to Usher or to other agents, must be suppressed.
The defendant has urged several grounds for suppression.
We believe, however, that Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), is fully dispositive of this aspect of the defendant's motion and therefore limit discussion to the principles there set out as they relate to the circumstances of the defendant's custodial interrogation. Although Low testified that he could not remember being advised of his constitutional rights, the evidence discloses that in conformity to Miranda, Usher advised Low of his right to remain silent, warned him that anything he said might be used in evidence against him, and advised him of his right to consult with an attorney and to call an attorney before he said anything. However, the evidence fails to disclose that Low made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel.
With respect to the demonstration of a waiver, the Court in Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra, p. 475, 86 S. Ct. p. 1628, has issued a strongly-worded caveat:
"If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel."
The Court further said at page 475, 86 S. Ct. p. 1628:
"* * * [A] valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained. * * *"