(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in the court’s judgment affirming defendant’s conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle.1 But I cannot join in affirming the firearms convictions, for I believe the weapon was seized in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The court today concludes that the suitcase in which the rifle was found was “within [Mason’s] immediate control, thereby justifying a protective search.2 I am fully aware of the multiple hazards officers face in making arrests. Consequently, I am prepared to uphold any *1131search reasonably necessary to protect officers. But the court’s conclusion that the rifle in this case endangered the agents defies belief. At the time of the search the defendant’s hands were handcuffed in front of him, an armed FBI agent was holding him, and a second armed agent stood between the defendant and the suitcase.3 The suitcase sat on a closet shelf at eye level, three to four feet away.4 Perhaps if Mason had “been possessed of the skill of Houdini and the strength of Hercules,”5 the court’s conclusion might be justifiable. But the court offers no evidence to “place him in such legendary company,” 6 nor does it explain how the mere “possibility of legerdemain” 7 can justify a warrantless search.
The court’s finding that the suitcase was within the defendant’s reach is all the more remarkable in light of arresting agent Murphy’s testimony. The court states that Murphy “would have been derelict in his duty to protect the other agent and himself if he had not taken the necessary precaution to examine the suitcase. . . . ”8 But Murphy disavowed any intent to “examine the suitcase”; he sought only to push it away.9 Moreover, the reason he offered for moving it was not that it was within the defendant’s control. Rather, Murphy testified that he intended to unhandcuff Mason and permit him to select a jacket from the closet, and that the suitcase was moved because it would have come under Mason’s control if he were unhandcuffed.10 Even the government does not attempt to argue that the suitcase was within Mason’s control. Thus, the court rests its decision on a theory not deemed credible by either the arresting agent or the government.
Nothing in Chimel v. California11 supports the court’s decision.12 Although Chimel involved a search of a three bedroom house, Chimel’s holding is not limited to prohibiting such massive searches. Instead, the Court expressly overruled United States v. Rabinowitz,13 which had involved the search of a single room, and held that searches incident to arrest must be confined to the area “within [a defendant’s] reach.”14 To uphold a search any broader, the Court concluded, would be to uphold every search, no matter how broad.15 Admittedly, the area “within reach” cannot be defined with precision. But the cases following Chi*1132mel establish that once a defendant is handcuffed, the area within reach must be narrowly defined.16 By ignoring these cases, this court adheres to the form but not the substance of Chimel. Its holding would seem to provide “search incident to arrest” with a magic power to justify any search.
The government’s theory for upholding the search is equally untenable. The government argues that moving the suitcase was a reasonable precaution before unhandcuffing Mason and allowing him access to the closet. But the assumption that the agents actually intended to allow Mason to remove a jacket from the closet is quite incredible. Although Agent Murphy claimed to have told Mason that Mason would be permitted to go to the closet, Agent Bailey testified that both he and Murphy had told Mason they would get the jacket for him.17 Murphy never explained how moving one suitcase within the closet could possibly make it safe to give Mason unsecured access, especially since the closet contained clothing “all pressed together” which was never searched.18 Most important, there was no need whatsoever to unhandcuff Mason and let him go to the closet. He had already described in detail the jacket he wanted.19 The only credible thing for the agents to have done is what they eventually did: remove the jacket for him.20
Of course, it is not our role to resolve factual questions. Unfortunately, however, the trial judge failed to make findings or offer reasons for denying the motion to suppress. Thus we cannot know whether he credited Murphy’s testimony that Murphy was planning to allow Mason unsecured access to the closet. At the very least, I would require an explicit finding before I could assume that the trial judge so found.21
*1133If the only defect in the government’s argument were its assumption regarding the agents’ intent, remanding the record for supplementation might well be appropriate. But even were the trial court to find that the agents planned to unhandcuff Mason, the government would still be required to justify that plan. A search cannot be upheld simply because the arresting officers decide to unhand-cuff a defendant. For Chimel to have any meaning, police officers must be prohibited from freely enlarging the area under a defendant’s control and thereby expanding the scope of their search.22 Only a compelling justification can be accepted in defense of such conduct.23
In this case, no justification — compelling or otherwise — is offered for allowing Mason access to the closet.24 Plainly, there was no need to do so. From all that appears on the record — and without any clarifying findings — the only rational inference is that the agents wanted an excuse for rummaging through the closet. Since the government wholly failed to meet its burden of justification, I would reverse the firearms convictions.25
. I concur in parts IIB and III of the court’s opinion. I concur in only the result of part IV, for even if defense counsel’s statement that severing only count one “would be a good suggestion” can be deemed a waiver of the motion to sever count four as the court contends, 173 U.S.App.D.C. at -, 523 F.2d at 1130 supra, that waiver was retracted when, prior to resting his case, defense counsel renewed his motion. (Tr. Tran, at 182-83). I would hold instead that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion: the evidence was simple and distinct so that the danger of the jury cumulating it was minimal, see, e. g., Baker v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 401 F.2d 958, 974 (1968); Dunaway v. United States, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 205 F.2d 23, 26 (1953); and the defense failed to make a special showing as to why it would be confounded by a refusal to sever, see, e. g., Bradley v. United States, 140 U.S. App.D.C. 7, 433 F.2d 1113, 1122 (1969); Blunt v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 306, 404 F.2d 1283, 1289 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 909, 89 S.Ct. 1021, 22 L.Ed.2d 221 (1969).
. 173 U.S.App.D.C. at---, 523 F.2d at 1125-1126 supra.
. Mo. Tr. at 51-54, 67.
. id. at 53-55.
. United States v. Frick, 490 F.2d 666, 673 (5th Cir. 1973) (Goldberg, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 831, 95 S.Ct. 55, 42 L.Ed.2d 57 (1974).
. Id.
. Id.
. 173 U.S.App.D.C. at -, 523 F.2d at 1126 supra.
. Mo. Tr. at 56 — 58.
. Murphy’s grand jury testimony, reprinted in note 4 of the court’s opinion, is clear on this point, as is both his first explanation (reprinted in the court’s opinion at 3 supra) and last explanation (Mo. Tr. at 58-59) at the hearing on the motion to suppress. His testimony in the middle of his interrogation, see id. at 53, is less clear. Taken out of context, this latter testimony could support the court’s conclusion.
. 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).
. Of the other cases cited by the court, two are wholly inapposite. United States v. Manante, 314 F.Supp. 607 (S.D.N.Y.1970), aff'd, 448 F.2d 583, 593 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 947, 92 S.Ct. 281, 30 L.Ed.2d 264 (1971) (evidence found in plain view when officer selects clothing for defendant); United States v. Webster, 426 F.2d 289 (4th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 986, 91 S.Ct. 1676, 29 L.Ed.2d 152 (1971) (pre-Chimel search). The third, United States v. Williams, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 173, 454 F.2d 1016, 1017 (1972) is a brief per curiam which does not set forth the relevant facts. From the record in Williams, it appears that the two defendants were both unhand-cuffed and three feet from the weapons at the time of the search. Tr. at 68-70, United States v. Williams, supra.
. 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950).
. 395 U.S. at 766, 89 S.Ct. 2034.
. Id.
. See United States v. Mapp, 476 F.2d 67, 80 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Shye, 473 F.2d 1061, 1066 (6th Cir. 1973) (area four feet from one suspect cannot be searched if suspect “under control”); United States v. Baca, 417 F.2d 103, 105 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 979, 92 S.Ct. 347, 30 L.Ed.2d 294 (1971); cf. United States v. Weaklem, 517 F.2d 70 (9th Cir. 1975) (greater search permissible before defendant handcuffed); United States v. Patterson, 447 F.2d 424 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1064, 92 S.Ct. 748, 30 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972) (same).
. Mo. Tr. at 65, 67.
. Id. at 59.
. Id. at 51.
. Id. at 50, 57, 65. This is also the procedure that has been followed in other reported cases involving a similar fact situation. See, e. g., United States v. Wysocki, 457 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 145, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972); United States v. Manarite, supra note 12; United States v. Titus, 445 F.2d 577 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 957, 92 S.Ct. 323, 30 L.Ed.2d 274 (1971); United States ex rel. Falconer v. Pate, 319 F.Supp. 206 (N.D.Ill.1970), aff’d, 478 F.2d 1405 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1094, 94 S.Ct. 726, 38 L.Ed.2d 551 (1973). Indeed this court has recently affirmed a case in which the same FBI agent handed clothes to an unclad, handcuffed defendant. See Mo. Tr. at 10, 28, United States v. Shields, Crim. No. 74-486, aff’d mem., 515 F.2d 1019 (1975).
. We have held that when a trial court fails to make findings of fact on a motion to suppress, its ruling will be upheld if supported by “any reasonable view of the evidence.” Scar-beck v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 135, 317 F.2d 546, 562 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 856, 83 S.Ct. 1897, 10 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1963); see United States v. Lindsay, 165 U.S.App.D.C. 105, 506 F.2d 166, 170 (1974). Those decisions need not bar remand for clarification of ambiguity as to whether a particular factual question was addressed by the trial court. Cf. United States v. Smith, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 342, 520 F.2d 74 (D.C.Cir. 1975); Masiello v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 304 F.2d 399 (1962). See also United States v. Miner, 484 F.2d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 1973). If Scarbeck requires appellate courts to substitute speculation for findings, then it is contrary to sound principles of judicial administration. Findings and explanations are both essential for proper review and are an indispensable aspect of basic fairness. There is no justification for dispensing with findings, since requiring them “is not onerous if the matter was dealt with in a conscientious manner in passing on the merits.” Davis v. Clark, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 379, 404 F.2d 1356, 1358 (1968) (separate opinion of Tamm, J.).
. Cf., e. g., United States v. Smith, supra note 21; United States v. Masiello, supra note 21. On remand it would be for the district judge to decide whether to hold further hearings.
. The court acknowledges this principle, 173 U.S.App.D.C. at -, 523 F.2d at 1125-1126 supra, but regards it as irrelevant because of its finding that the suitcase was within Mason’s reach.
. See United States v. Marshall, 499 F.2d 76 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1112, 95 S.Ct. 788, 42 L.Ed.2d 809 (1975) (search of car not within defendant’s control justified by policy of permitting defendants to drive their cars to police station); Parker v. Swenson, 332 F.Supp. 1225 (E.D.Mo.1971), aff’d, 459 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1126, 93 S.Ct. 943, 35 L.Ed.2d 258 (1973) (expanded search justified by defendant’s request to go to his locker).
The requirement that unnecessary searches be avoided is simply a specific embodiment of the requirement that when constitutional rights are at stake, the least drastic means must be chosen to accomplish governmental objectives. See, e.g., United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 88 S.Ct. 419, 19 L.Ed.2d 508 (1967); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S.Ct. 247, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960). That principle has been adopted in a number of fourth amendment contexts. For example, airport searches have been held unlawful if a would-be-passenger elects not to board the plane. See United States v. Miner, 484 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1973); cf. United States v. Albarado, 495 F.2d 799, 807 (2d Cir. 1974); United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 910-11 (9th Cir. 1973). See also Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 317-18, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d 408 (1971) (upholding welfare home visits because, inter alia, recipient has right to refuse entrance); United States v. Williams, 372 F.Supp. 65, 67-68 (D.S.D.1974). Similarly, the scope of searches have been limited based on the justification for the search. Compare Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), with United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973).
. In the guise of criticizing my discussion of the Government’s theory, the majority offers yet a third explanation for the search; according to this version, the search was conducted so that Mason could be unhandcuffed while putting on the jacket. See n.10 supra. This explanation is wholly inconsistent with the theory offered in the text of the majority opinion, 173 U.S.App.D.C.---, 523 F.2d 1125-1127, supra, and finds no support in the agents’ testimony, see Mo. Tr. at 51, 59. See also Government Brief at 14-15. It does not explain how moving one suitcase could have assured the agents’ safety, see text at note 18 supra. And it cannot justify the search, since no reason is offered for permitting Mason to put on the jacket while standing so close to the closet. Indeed, all that the majority’s theory proves is the vital need for requiring findings from the district court, rather than basing our decision on surmise. See text & note 21 supra.