*1
MURRAH,*
Before DUFFY and
Judges,
Circuit
Senior
* *
JUERGENS,
Judge.
District
DUFFY,
Judge.
Senior Circuit
indicted for
Defendant Preston was
passing a
Re-
Indiana,
Michigan City,
serve Note
February
1970 After a trial
jury,
guilty
sen-
imprisonment
a term of
tencеd to
years.
five
February
On
stopped
in In-
at a Shell Service Station
dianapolis,
di-
Preston asked
Indiana.
Michigan City,
rections
gasoline, purchasing oil
After
**
*
Juergens
Judge
William G.
Senior
Alfred P. Murrаh of
Chief
Circuit
by designa-
sitting
Illinois
is sit
Eastern District
the Tenth
Circuit
designation.
ting by
tion.
§
18 U.S.C.
*2
paid
Mar-
stalled for
He informed Preston
the station attendant
fendant
premises
Note.
tin
Federal Reserve
the watch was not on the
but
with a $20
claiming
personally
it
returned to
Martin refused
Preston
was counterfeit and told Preston
offered
afternoon. Preston
“just
piece
paper.”
pay immediаtely
pick
another
have
up his watch. Martin refused and
told
Martin he knew where
pushed
hold-up
to summon
button
he obtained the note
Martin
and offered
security
to retain
watch
until he
his
as
legitimate
currency.
arrived,
with
returned
When
local
brandishing
Martin returned the
bill and
Martin was
a baseball bat
bay.
holding
Preston
left
station.
Preston
Neither officer
prior transaction at
was aware of the
attempted
Martin thus alerted to the
station,
one
asked
therefore
officer
note, promptly
of a counterfeit
sanctuary
Preston
take
contacted the United States Secret Serv-
apparent
car from the
wrath
ice with
to this
The
incident.
club-wielding attendant.
Secret Service advised Martin to sum-
unguarded
mon
in the event that
wаs left alone and
Preston
same
man returned.
in the rear
car while
seat of the
the officers
the situation with
discussed
evening
day,
On the
of the same
Pres-
colloquy,
offi-
After a brief
Martin.
tоn met one Brooks at the latter’s home
Preston
the car for
cers asked
to leave
Michigan
City,
midnight
At
interrogation concerning the
bill.
they
person
with
drove
one other
empty
pockets
Preston was asked to
his
Owen’s Gas Station and ordered $2
display
posses-
currency in
his
gasoline
attendant,
worth of
complied with this re-
sion.
From the
Covert.
evidence adduсed
quest. The
then asked if he
right
seated in the
front
they
searched
minded
his
[Preston]
passenger’s
paid
seat,
purchase
replied
automobile. He
script page 16],
“No.”
[Tran-
with a folded
Note
He then unlocked
which note
served
basis
peru-
car
the trunk for the officers’
change
Covert
indictment.
returned
Nothing
sal.
was found.
on the driver’s side of the
and the
car
pullеd away
car
from the service station.
night,
Later that
conducted a
Upon unfolding
bill,
Covert noted
back seat of
appear
it did not
to be
sitting.
authentic. where Preston had
been
yelled
occupants
of the car to
proce-
officers stated this was normal
stop but his efforts went
unheeded.
dure
one
after some
The attendant made a note оf the license lice
When the back seat was
vehicle.
Michigan
number
the car and the
uplifted, the
officers found counterfeit
City police were alerted.
Federal Resеrve Note on the left
where
side of
following
morning, February 11,
sitting.
passed
note and the
This
1970, Preston returned to
Sta-
the Shell
Michigan
City
the defendant bore
Indianapolis
tion in
ap-
at six o’clоck
number,
quad-
same
the same serial
parently to retrieve his watch. Preston
number,
plate number
rant
the same
informed attendant Martin
he had
plate
and had the same
defects.3
traveled 300 miles for his watch. Mar-
tin,
course,
possi-
was alerted to
argues
Upon appeal,
bility
might
that return and
his automo-
his
Transcript, page
Agent
Special
testi-
for the Govеrnment
that he had been in the
Service
fied
Secret
3. The defects must have been substantial
years
exhibit “are
facility
and the bills on
because
both
which
among
poorest
service
I
station
have
attendants
counterfeits
realized the
trial,
counterfeit nature of the notes. At
ever seen.”
relinquished
Indi-
his
Station in
bile at the
Shell
subsequent
proposition,
anapоlis
over
For
police car, hours
on Rios
relies
per
4 L.
later,
se under
80 S.Ct.
unreasonable
(1960); Wong
was, there- Ed.2d 1688
Sun v. Unit
and it
Fourth Amendment
deny
fore,
ed
error for the trial court
*3
(1963);
suppress the
United
L.Ed.2d
Hobson v.
to
441
counsel’s motion
fense
1955)
urged sup-
(8 Cir.,
States,
and
evidence. Yet the evidence
pressed
890
two Indiana
by
the
cases.4
defendant
was
police
con-
the
car аfter his
in
found
important distinguishing factor
An
police.
frontation with
by
defendant
cases cited
ques-
that the
Reserve Note here in
ruling
at
The District Court made
tion,
purpose of
admitted
the limited
hearing
suppress
the motion to
that no
knowledge
establishing
intent, was
and
search
at the Shell
was effected
not
of
found as a result of a search
The record
that Pres-
indicates
Station.
home,
person.
Preston’s
automobile or
voluntarily produced
and
ton
his billfold
Nor can we
a
interest
find
currency
not
therein. He was
of
in the
Patrol
Indiana State
person and
frisked nor was his
billfold
occupied the
ear
he
rear seat
hours after
by
feel
evi-
handled
We
Extending
ar-
such
of
gument
car.
defendant’s
of
no search
dence indicatеs there was
apply
to
fact situation
this
any
re-
Preston’s
at
time. With
pro-
require
police
spect
car,
indi-
defendant’s
the record
proof
proba-
a
cure warrant аnd offer
trunk
cates that
examination of the
searching their own
ble cause before
contents
full
was
with the
effected
lice cars.
knowledge,
cooperation of
сonsent and
opin-
distinguishing
are also
defendant. We
Another
feature
finding
per-
ion
a
such
tween
relied
this ease
those
probable
herein,
tinent
had
en-
as the defendant
defendant is that
during
police automobile,
cause
search Preston’s automobile.
tered the
132,
States,
car,
period
Carroll
267
he
U.S.
remained in
280,
(1925);
police
searching
not
were
Marоney,
property
v.
399
even the
himself.
Chambers
nor
defendant
(1970);
Indeed,
90
Coolidge
en-
S.Ct.
547
(10 Cir.,
1957),
Cir.,
cert. den. 355 U.S.
(1957). A
simi
2 L.Ed.2d
F. S.Ct.
Lovette
concerning receipt and
(5
lar instruction
2d 263
vehicles
conсealment
stolen motor
objections upon
raises
approved by
in United States
our Court
concerning
appeal
in
the Government’s
Cir., 1970).
Hood,
F.2d 737
First,
structions
argues
the Government
furthеr hold
No.
We
Instruction
reasonable doubt
part
prejudicially
included
stat
passing
guilty of
indictment,
charged
con
ute not
Note with
stituting
In the
indict
charged.
over
bar,
intent to defraud as
ment for the case at
bar,
note, whelming
charged
in the case at
evidence
With
a counterfeit
considering
in a
record
evidence and
whereas
instruction included
Government,
light
keeps
possession.”
part
favorable to
To that
most
“or
*4
guilty.
supports
jury
specific statute,
verdict of
ob
of the
jects.
carefully
judge
Glasser United
315 U.S.
went to
great lengths
jury on the
proving
intent,
specific
wilfulness
routinely
ploitation”
that such
must
after
search their own automobile
reasonable
intent
doubt. Because
must
To
defendant had
it.
be inferred from conduct
the defend
rationalization
ant,
presumed
“the intent
and in
poisonous
push it
tree
doctrine
ferred from the
result of
action.”
credibility.
yond the limits of
Agnew
The court’s instructions to
see
L.Ed.
Green,
are free
States