Harold B. Dorman v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Harold B. Dorman v. United States

435 F.2d 385, 140 U.S. App. D.C. 313, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9785

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1970

Docket21736

StatusPublished

Cited by617 cases

This text of 435 F.2d 385 (Harold B. Dorman v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold B. Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385, 140 U.S. App. D.C. 313, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9785 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

BAZELON, Chief Judge

(concurring in the result).

I am inclined to agree with Judge Wright, infra, that the nighttime search of Dorman’s apartment was not exempted from the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement by Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). I need not reach this question, however, because I conclude that any error in admitting the fruit of this search was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Almost from the time of the robbery itself, the evidence implicating Dorman was overwhelming (e. g., the abandoned probation papers and the eyewitness identifications). Just as this evidence reduced the need for Hat/dew-like pursuit of a fleeing, unknown suspect, it also establishes that any error here was harmless under Chapman. See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BAZELON, Chief Judge

(concurring in the result).

I am inclined to agree with Judge Wright, infra, that the nighttime search of Dorman’s apartment was not exempted from the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement by Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). I need not reach this question, however, because I conclude that any error in admitting the fruit of this search was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Almost from the time of the robbery itself, the evidence implicating Dorman was overwhelming (e. g., the abandoned probation papers and the eyewitness identifications). Just as this evidence reduced the need for Hat/dew-like pursuit of a fleeing, unknown suspect, it also establishes that any error here was harmless under Chapman. See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 F.2d 385, 140 U.S. App. D.C. 313, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-b-dorman-v-united-states-cadc-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack