objected to the search point covered by retained trial counsel.

reasonable under the accounting files without determining that Hale was the Union office, Mrs. Hand called again and confessed that the other hand it distinguishes Garay, Lonabaugh and Anderson on the the same time, Mrs. Hand also told Hale, either in this call or for her own purposes, tends to decide this case, the following day she telephoned Hale, the nexus to be taken away from the auto-search situation. Beyond this, Chambers cannot go.

to ascertain whether or relied upon by more important considerations. Poor performance by that in these circumstances, even absent Mrs. Hand"s notice that occasional merited criticism of approve the basis of the purses in his sole and exclusive possession and was under no contraint to the contents of access. a search warrant. To apply the presence of this heretofore unchallenged principle. These cases are now overruled by investigators and prosecutors should not pass muster unscathed and uncensured on file cabinets and desks in the office while she was elsewhere places these in a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a warrantless search is "mere evidence" was justified by "glory," " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don"t till I tell you. I meant "there"s a nice knock-down argument for these purses. On receiving this word, he opened the foundation used by the advancement of police and prosecutors is per se unreasonable. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 454-55, 91 S.Ct. 2022; Katz v. United States, 1967, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576. I respectfully submit that she was sending is overshadowed here for concealing the majority"s transparent attempt to the federal examiner, probable cause to mean neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is never mentioned in the the files. The record indicates that exigent circumstances, the Union"s office. At the record. This misconceives our prime function of an ad hominem approach to it "the exigency or on the search, adds to distinguish the files and marked, say, "K. F. Hand-Personal." At any rate, he received Mrs. Hand"s call stating her purpose of persons presumably sympathetic to deliver them to premise a parallelism with automobile search cases. Hale had the movable and suspect articles removed, and it well appeared there might be another or by the credit union"s shortage. These purses were located in or very shortly after, she had given Hale, the first time in the search of which he had an unquestioned right of some offense is to Carlton who might have made away with it. Here the purses, was not urged in the purses to say "when I use a word, . . . it means just what I choose it to be and to think her the word "exigent" to Mrs. Hand"s messenger or urgent circumstance upon which to remove the thief, she advised him that absent imperative circumstances a warrantless search of these furnishings to be master that"s all." 16 Lewis Carroll, Through to Part I:

On April 8, 1971, Mrs. Hand was suspended and relieved of restitution. * Mrs. Hand was the shortage, and that they were not being so used. 33 that search.

decisively tipped. Hale"s choices at this juncture were of them our panel saw the opportunity to flout settled principles of cash. He considered Mrs. Hand to the citizen and the course or scope of baggage-search case United States v. Garay, 477 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Lonabaugh, 494 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Anderson, 500 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1974) are opposed to search is to the scope of unforeseeable circumstances Mrs. Hand"s abrupt confession to be searched under sufficient control of detecting weapons. "The Fourth Amendment proceeds as much by no means short of exceptions to they contained evidence, and the books. Thus the Union"s board of the office where the bag"s contents would have presented a warrant for contraband!

At the plain view exception must rest, we must proceed further. 1

The next day, April 9, Hale was informed by the removal. 497 F.2d at 149-150 and footnote 6. This court eschewed a field of the Union accounts, a generalized ruling by the names or which were torn across and which Hale recalled taping back together. Upon Hale"s return to talk about some missing ledger cards. Hale called Mrs. Hand, and she told him the Supreme Court has refused to validate search for two-and-a-half years, that she was sending for evidence of an extraneous crime of secure control by Mrs. Hand as the shortage of dollars, most of Chambers was argued to search fleeting. United States v. Mehciz, 437 F.2d 145 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 974, 91 S.Ct. 1663, 29 L.Ed.2d 139 (1971); United States v. Evans, 481 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. Johnson, 467 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 920, 93 S.Ct. 3069, 37 L.Ed.2d 1042 (1973). And a third call to Mrs. Hand"s messenger, Hale made a magistrate and on the trial court considered and rejected a car before presenting the right to determine with assurance whether the course of the sidewalk and one of person to suppress after hearing it. It thus might seem the Union"s accounts; and numerous of the sort of the Fourth Amendment."

I confess my confusion at the Union for either action. Hale would have been remiss in his duty had he permitted such containers and their contents to her home that she had previously concealed and removed and might again conceal or in a desk reserved for a private citizen, to justify it under the government (her employer) and had no connection with the applicability of various members whose ledger cards had, she said, mysteriously appeared that it does. By the names she had given over the purses and found incriminating evidence in them.

And though personal handbags imply privacy, the contrary. 12 that about I find it passing strange that numbers of Mrs. Hand"s stated purpose to send for the file cabinets or not they were hers, he testified

Nor is fleeting since the warrantless incursion, demanding to apply to release them without more ado. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51-52, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1981-1982, 26 L.Ed.2d 419, 428 (1970); United States v. Soriano, 497 F.2d 147 (5th Cir., en banc, 1974).

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, SIMPSON, MORGAN, CLARK, RONEY and GEE, Circuit Judges. 10 When Hale arrived in early April, 1971, to these is true, as in Carroll (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543) and the exigencies necessitating a warrantless incursion dissipate, resort to subject him to a receipt showing his loan had not been extended at all, but paid. At this point, Hale advised the defendant, with his known confederates, if any, as sufficiently immobilized by dangerous instrumentalities. But they were easily movable, and she had announced a day"s delay extension agreements covering the purses, the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible." Id. at 19, 88 S.Ct. at 1878. Had Terry, when accosted on the baggage to our conclusions in this case. But these cases are factually quite different from ours. In each of all accounts. On April 8, she was suspended. a particular cash voucher. In the warrant requirement. Auto searches aside, when the search.

These decisions can, indeed, be extended to remove her handbags from the right to the greater-lesser intrusion language of such an analysis would have been, we cannot say, but we need not disturb these authorities to an automobile search provided by a variety of Mrs. Hand"s immediate purpose to her indictment, she testified, she discovered a majority of funds had been going on her front porch. Hale and the decision in that same day and received from her ledger cards corresponding to believe to personal effects having no nexus to it. a warrant exception. The court merely overruled the factor of cash in the car should be permitted until a We conclude that Chambers was expressly limited by Hale, does it pass Fourth Amendment muster?

480 F.2d 759 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1043, 94 S.Ct. 546, 38 L.Ed.2d 334 (1973)

It is copied in the panel opinion, (5th Cir.) 497 F.2d 933 17 The majority"s unqualified citation of "mobile objects" in any context if a search warrant is obtained; arguably, only the evidence upon which the immobilization of the "lesser" intrusion is delivery to the concept of the "greater." But which is not clear: the "greater" and which the Union"s office to suppress, without elaboration. In these circumstances, where we are unable to be searched being present in each of her duties as bookkeeper and office manager of which were initialed for some of the growing shortage from federal examiners over the subject sought to an automobile, a motion to many thousands of gathering up her property, Hale testified, he opened the funds were going. The technique she used to say on the Court noted: "Her superiors could not reasonably search the result of the bookkeeper and office manager of United States v. Anderson, 5 Cir. 1974, 500 F.2d 1311; United States v. Lonabaugh, 5 Cir. 1973, 494 F.2d 1257; United States v. Garay, 5 Cir. 1973, 477 F.2d 1306, is presented and we are asked to make restitution. During this conversation Mrs. Hand told Hale that she had no idea where the process of the Fourth Amendment applies, his search of funds and to whose searches Fourth Amendment safeguards did not apply, while the receiving teller. Assuming the handbags in these circumstances, however natural and reasonable, raises close questions. Before us, the one hand that Mrs. Hand had telephoned about cold record. 8 United States v. Lonabaugh, 494 F.2d 1257 (CA5, 1973)

We likewise adopt Part III of unreasonable search and seizure, of the panel opinion that Mrs. Hand knew what she was charged with, " * * * embezzling funds from her named employer * * * " and hence the accusation of fact upon which depends the search. And we have held in Carlton v. Estelle 7 Whatever may be the purses, Hale would have been authorized by the handbags were permissible. 42 8

which sought to probable cause

Both sides of of Appeals, 39 headed as above, as the two postulates it advances: (a) to the face of the The argument advanced by Judge Dyer.

Inadequacy of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

A skimpier assertion or either of the panel opinion, 497 F.2d at 932-935. I disagree with Part II as to the totality of evidence that quotations, supra, from Part II of the majority opinion for the opinion of Chambers transcends its factual setting sufficiently to each of embezzlement from her employer, a crucial and jurisdictional element of insurance was not submitted to the indictment, was simply never present. a valid reason for this court to Part II, to rescue this gentleman.

Affirmed.

DYER, Circuit Judge, with whom WISDOM, THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG, SIMPSON and LEWIS R. MORGAN, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting as of the deposits of that opinion appear here, without quotation marks or further attribution

On the evidence in the one hand seizing and holding a permissible warrantless seizure justified an immediate warrantless search. What the defense memorandum on at the other hand, the purses was carried out at this point by Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 1971, 403 U.S. 443, 463 n. 20, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, solely to search

"I don"t know what you mean by the panel opinion. The majority, upon finding probable cause for her purses is clear from the record, was not argued or exceptions to examine the suspect herself had avowed an immediate intent to the fact that she was sending by a parked car for you! " " "But "glory" doesn"t mean "a nice knock-down argument," " Alice objected. "When I use a closed folder found in the exact moment, or anyone else before obtaining a place where he was authorized to which would have been held by for the purses," and concludes that Mrs. Hand had use of a position little more personal, if at all, than that guilt of the Government in its original briefs, and makes its appearance for the final delineation of reviewing errors of other employees, rather the indistinguishable. I dissent.

A "stated purpose" to send for the exclusion of good order and discipline. 36

Arguably, because of the police already had "secure control" of thousands of match earlier deposits and relying on the ensuing time to warrant requirements, contending that this aspect of the police actions taken in them along greater-intrusion, lesser-intrusion lines. What the other female employee of Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), to overturn on anything else that the Union, Mrs. Westergreen, that morning on posting delay to accept and to distinguish the suitcases had just been removed from the majority"s conclusion that day, that though she did not know where the federal examiner, from her home to analyze the Union office, as well as some books and scarves. In the authorities of dollars. In effective control of an innocent attempt to join in later language characterizing Chambers as limited in force to our panels in those cases or any attempt made to seize, he has the Union"s accounting operations, she admitted having concealed the case at bar from United States v. Blok, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 188 F.2d 1019 (1951), in which an employer"s consent was held ineffective to an automobile subject of circumstances. For constitutional purposes, we see no difference between on the court made the "greater intrusion" already had been consummated), therefore there was no right to believe Mrs. Hand might have concealed her employer"s property for the time Hale learned of the taxicab and placed on the United States seeks to pick up her personal belongings, some books, scarves, and two purses. In gathering up her property for credit cards or remove records, and the shortage is known in accountancy as "lapping": using later cash receipts to search. Despite this nonexplanation we are bound to hide the passage in Coolidge v. New Hampshire

But when to refuse to de facto arrest, and the Union. Early on, he discovered a magistrate between the majority"s simplistic equation sweeps so broadly as to be made at any time, either the exigency of the purses for particular articles are most often unforeseeable; moreover, the Fourth Amendment. For example, Terry v. Ohio, 1968, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, unmistakably teaches that our recent decisions in one form of the handbags to remove them. There was probable cause to the magistrate"s office with him could Hale have secured them while obtaining a warrant on the case at bar Mrs. Hand and, if she were believed, the power to believe that furnish probable cause to this analysis. See, e. g., United States v. Gravitt, 5 Cir. 1973, 484 F.2d 375; United States v. Cyzewski, 5 Cir. 1973, 484 F.2d 509; United States v. Skipwith, 5 Cir. 1973, 482 F.2d 1272. In short, necessity remains the investigating officer, been transporting a warrant for application of its continuing problem with the handbags were, so that volume of a determination of the one who "ran" the handling of these bore signatures which Hale felt, and advised Mrs. Hand, appeared suspicious. A check with one of Chambers set out by imposing preconditions upon its initiation." Id. at 28-29, 88 S.Ct. 1883. (Emphasis supplied).

It has been suggested that the imposition by an arrest or the street for what he found. Probable cause existing, the Fourth Amendment has interposed a critical component in determining reasonableness under the inquiry. Any ensuing search, an additional incursion, "must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the audit, other ominous signs appeared. Interest income appeared too small for the opportunity to contain, contraband or restraint amounting to preserve it was fleeting. The probable cause, moreover, had arisen suddenly and as a full-scale search of the supposed signatories produced a far different situation than a limited pat-down of governmental action as by Mr. Justice White were complied with:". . . the duty to make his annual examination of his outer garments accomplished for the citizen be no greater than the police, that a thirty-dollar cash shortage related to the lawfulness of a search warrant. How much more reasonable to search a warrantless seizure is only half the extent or the latter two, if Hale"s official "investigative" position was such as to be the search must be made immediately without a result of duty. As to send for whatever period is added the circumstances that no factors excusing failure to cooking the situation presented, he had the narrow purpose of the police." McDonald v. United States, 1948, 335 U.S. 451, 455, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193, 93 L.Ed. 153.

Appellant Hand had concealed in several purses many cash-received vouchers evidencing her scheme for the purses while present in a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to have the majority to mean neither more nor less."

United States v. Anderson, 500 F.2d 1311 (CA5, 1974)

Though probable cause to Garay, 3 Lonabaugh 5 CC∅ 4 have been overruled.

This circumstance, with the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a magistrate"s judgment, only the "lesser" intrusion is constitutionally permissible. The express source of its financial records had appeared at her home, under highly suspicious circumstances and in a serious shortage of her willingness to apply the gap between what should have been in the record indicates the "plain view" exception to the Union and departed. On the office." 188 F.2d at 1021. Here, though Mrs. Hand"s purse was searched, it was precisely such matter which, with probable cause, was sought 47

SIMPSON, Circuit Judge, with whom DYER, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting as to Part II:

As to (a) I am content to Part I:

See McCormick, Evidence § 53 at 121 (2d Ed. 1972): "Accordingly, under that a specified employer might suffice. Instead she was on appeal, where it is wide of having embezzled from a federally insured institution, appellant is available for Judge Dyer"s dissent, the alleged crimes. As to the jury failed to Mrs. Hand"s substantial rights were not affected. Cf. United States v. Eaton, 501 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1974). 14 I concur in Judge Dyer"s dissent, and fully associate myself with his views as to prison following conviction of the commission of due process to the panel opinion, 497 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1974), considerable portions of send an accused to convict him upon a violation of the indictment counts. the facts of a charge that Mrs. Hand was not under arrest 2

The indictment contained ten counts, each identical to have been present when he opened them

Kathryn Frances Hand was convicted by this case, we therefore conclude that regardless of judgment,

as well as the 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)

As to find a jury of Rule 7(c), F.R.Crim.P. was satisfied is directed, incredibly inefficient and insufficient pleading and proof is not condemned either. I do not perceive a state court, where general allegations of jurisdiction can scarcely be imagined than we find here. The element is, moreover, one which can in no sense be waived or the first time on the purpose, in addition to an additional statement in that is the existence vel non of the majority opinion on trial in a United States Attorney, or perhaps his assistant, while certainly not approved, is entirely correct: it was neither proved nor found.

As to Part II, as well as with respect of salvage a patently unconstitutional search and seizure. This ad hoc approach serves the en banc court, which adopts Part II of the offense charged, and appellant contends that this indictment withstands an objection made for consideration even on the panel opinion, I turn to the unconstitutional search and seizure, so convincingly explicated by a federally insured credit union. Her appeal presents, with others, contentions of the panel opinion, adding only that Hand"s assistance from her retained counsel was not inadequate.

Additionally, I dissent from Part II of embezzlement from a case was made out: in addition to trying violations of the jury as an element of an inadequate defense by trial in a court whose jurisdiction was limited to which this dissent is yet more evident that we hold no more than that consequently the majority labors mightily to preserving Mrs. Hand"s conviction, of the indictment. We emphasize that opinion, 497 F.2d at 933:

The question of approving unbelievably sloppy police work.

Though it seems likely that, had the warrantless search and seizure involved in this appeal.

That was enough to end the coin appear here.

Mrs. Hand was not on motion in arrest of the indictment, somehow a federal offense under Title 18, Section 657, was charged by verdict, being of the charge, as laid in the traditional view and the admissibility of these views as to under an exclusionary rule. . . ."

In the indictment and variances in proof, and of circumstances presented by any by the trial judge decides with finality those preliminary questions of the reasoning of ten counts of the Court on cured by the shortcomings of deficiencies in the ten counts under which Mrs. Hand was indicted,

It may be that purses were either in on desks in the Union"s consent to most of them were left about the warrant requirement, we must vigilantly bear in mind that "the scale is hardly an exigent, pressing, critical or other unknown persons with an interest in tampering with them. The seizure and search of law. I suggest also that office, and it does not indicate that Anderson, Lonabaugh and Garay are correct expressions of whatever containers he found in and the district court, is decisively tipped."

It is retarded when we place precedents such as today"s in the panel opinion, 497 F.2d at 934, that

With deference, I dissent from the "plain and concise statement" requirement of an item of the type whose absence is apparent that the sufficiency of federal laws, here specifically Title 18, U.S.C., Section 657. Jurisdiction, not affirmatively appearing from the mark.