William Spinelli v. United States

SPINELLI, Appellant, William America,

UNITED STATES Appellee.

No. 18389. Appeals

United States Court Eighth Circuit.

July 1967. Sept. 12,

Rehearing Denied (Interstate of racket- travel aid

eering) . jury Appellant before tried charged had an that he indictment which in- in interstate commerce with traveled carry establish, promote, manage, tent to on, promotion of un- an and facilitate activity, lawful to-wit: a business enter- prise involving gambling in violation of 563.360, R.S.Mo., Missouri, the law of § per- V.A.M.S.; thereafter did perform attempt form and acts on, carry promote, manage, establish and manage- promotion, and facilitate carrying ment, on of establishment activity. said unlawful He was found guilty by jury and sentenced years imprisonment Court to three $5,000.00 fine. judgment appeal from that

initially argued of this before a division Judges consisting Court Van Ooster- hout, Heaney. Contrary Gibson, and Court, holding District standing panel agreed had object apartment room to a search actually occupying, that he was not majority panel, opinion of that in an Judge by Heaney, authored ruled appellant the conviction of re- should be versed in that room as evidence seized result of an unconstitutional the Baris, Irl Baris, B. of Newmark & majority search. felt the affi- Louis, Mo., appellant. St. for support davit of the search warrant Sidney Glazer, Attorney, Dept, M. of did not establish On this cause. Justice, Washington, C., appellee; D. for point Judge nu- Gibson dissented. The Jr., FitzGibbon, Atty., Richard D. S.U. points alleged by of merous other error Stephen Gilmore, H. Asst. S.U. appellant by considered Atty., Louis, Mo., St. M. Fred Vin- panel dispositive of nature because son, Jr., Atty. Gen., Asst. Theodore holding majority on the search George Gilinsky, Washington, C.,D. on warrant issue. the brief. Thereafter, government petitioned VOGEL, Judge, Before Chief and VAN rehearing the Court for a en Ow- banc. OOSTERHOUT, MATTHES, BLACK- importance question of MUN, MEHAFFY, GIBSON, LAY and opinion panel, the division of HEANEY, Judges, sitting Circuit en rehearing en banc ordered. At this banc. point appellant rehearing contends protection violates his constitutional GIBSON, Judge. Circuit against jeopardy. govern- As double appeal judgment appeal by This is an generally from a of ment cannot actions court, the United States appellant District Court for the trial contends government “appeal” Eastern District of Missouri convict- cannot decisions ing appellant violating by Ap- of 18 reached division of § U.S.C. the Court.

877 on a time trial a second posi- to stand authority fendant pellant this cites no being acquitted. after once by issue factual persuaded are not tion and we Connecticut, 302 of See, State Palko v. argument. 149, 288 82 L.Ed. 58 S.Ct. government no has It is true that held (1937). Consequently, has been it right appeal criminal unless cases though Supreme that even Court specifically Um authorized statute. ordered appellant’s has been conviction an (9 625 258 F.2d briaco v. Appeals, Court of a Court reversed 1958); 24 Criminal Law § C.J.S. power Appeals still retains of However, prohibition arises this upon order that reversal amend revise common law and neces out of the rehearing action, and its re of sarily encompassed constitutional subject crim does not consideration prohibition. For, see, 18 as we U.S.C. § jeopardy. For to double inal defendant government specifically 3731 authorizes 425- 361 U.S. man v. United instances, appeals in and the exer some 4 L.Ed.2d right appeal of of not neces cise does jurisdiction to rehear the This Court has sarily right a criminal defendant’s violate judgment with thereon case and alter its against jeopardy. United double States infringing appellant’s upon constitu out Bitty, 393, 28 v. Cyclopedia rights. Federal tional (1908). See, v. United States L.Ed. Ed., (3rd Procedure, 1965 Rev. 51.178 § Ventresca, Vol.). (1965) govern L.Ed.2d 684 in which the ap- large questions on this A number ment secured review of an adverse Court peal warrant around the search Appeals revolve decision. incriminating evi- to uncover used pursue However, we need not mat- Among ques- gambling. these dence government constitutionality ter standing ques- appellant’s are: tions appeals appellate an re- court’s sufficiency validity, tion its position consideration its own issuing magis- before the question law, is far different execution, trate, propriety of its appeal an from a final decision of a trial specify some of evidence failure long juris- court. as this has As Court seized. that was cause, express diction over the has lengthy After surveillance authority under Title U.S.C. § sought and a arrest warrant the F.B.I. and, 2106 and Court Rule 15 rehear § support affidavit search warrant. The necessary, modify if decisions. Ulime its made before the search warrant was Ulime, U.S.App.D.C. 281, in St. a United Commissioner States (1953); Cyclopedia 14A of Federal Louis, Missouri, August 18, 1965 and on (3rd Ed., Procedure, 68.123 1965 Rev. § Agent signed by Special of was the a Vol.); 36 C.J.S. Federal Courts § affiant related that the F.B.I. It appel- agents F.B.I. observed jurisdiction This Court retains driving the onto lant his automobile over a cause at until least is a mandate leading bridges approaches of eastern majority issued with accordance a Louis, Louis, to from East St. Illinois St. opinion. Since no has mandate issued 1965; Au- on four Missouri occasions case, opinion panel in this of gust 6, m.; August 11, a. 11:44 a. 11:16 interlocutory was retains the Court m.; August August m.; p. 12:07 jurisdiction question to driving 11:08 a. m. observed He was change any tentative decisions of the Bridge of Eads off of the western end subjecting appellant Court to without Louis, of oc- Missouri on these St. jeopardy. form of additional August August casions: ap- Obviously, appellate The an court’s affiant further related by legal opinion pellant been federal reconsideration of is had observed its driving completely agents parking requiring the car a area unlike into criminal de- by Manor was served used residents of the Chieftain with the to search warrant apartment. key Apartments per- Drive A at 1108 Indian Circle found on his Louis, Missouri, August 11, open apartment son 4:40 was used to in St. door. m.; m.; August agents p. August prem- p. A of 3:46 number searched the ises, m.; August 16, p. p. appellant m. took 3:45 3:22 while others to August headquarters. appellant On was observed search uncovered entering gambling paraphernalia the front entrance the Chief- various items August against Apartments. appellant tain Manor 13 which On were introduced appellant entering was and were considered as observed essential items apartment appellant’s sec- southwest corner on the to conviction. designated Apartment ond floor F. suppress A to motion ob- evidence August 16, parking On after car timely in the search was made tained walking appellant lot observed and overruled District Court building. apartment toward the ground had allege failed to or show he was appel- After this detailed recitation of searched, legitimately upon premises lant’s movements the affidavit went on and, therefore, object. standing lacked to state: “The records of Southwestern Bell STANDING TO OBJECT Telephone Company reflect there apply We feel the trial court did * * * (in telephones apart- are two existing does law and that defendant F) ment under the P. name Grace standing object have * * * ** Hagen *. The numbers apartment. In Jones v. search of this are WYdown 4-0029 and WYdown 4- United 0136.” (1960) the defendant L.Ed.2d 697 Spinelli “William known is to this charged violating nar- federal affiant and to federal law enforcement permit conviction cotics statutes agents and local law enforcement proof upon possession narcotics. agents bookmaker, as a an associate Court, overruling Supreme bookmakers, gambler, and an associ- Appeals, court trial and the Court gamblers.” ate guest apart- defendant, held Investiga- “The Federal Bureau of searched, had ment at the time tion has been confi- informed standing 41(e) Fed. under Rule dential reliable informant that William question Rules of Criminal Procedure Spinelli operating a handbook and validity of a search in which narcotics accepting wagers disseminating were seized. wagering information means of the standing object To telephones assigned which have been 41(e) the defendant search under Rule numbers WYdown 4-0029 and “person aggrieved” must be the WYdown 4-0136.” search. The Fourth Amendment On the basis of protection at the Constitution aimed Commissioner issued a warrant for the Boyd privacy of citizens. Apartment of search F of Chieftain the Apartments. testimony Manor No oral Therefore, to L.Ed. was taken. aggrieved by of this a in violation search person show a be able to Armed with federal Amendment must the warrant the by agents privacy directly the apartment his was invaded went that to the Jones, building to most of the search. Prior stationed themselves apartment applied Apart- of common the strict doctrines across hall from courts rights required property law ment F. After two and ten a hour minute signifi very standing showing emerged wait, appellant Apart- of some a the from premises. possessory interest cant the ment F into the hall and was served with Jones, supplanted however, line of this an arrest At the he same time warrant. hearing testimony developed authority the if defendant the at to held that the using legally upon suppress. Appellant the seen that he was had show been could parking He of the search the tenant’s was seen premises and the fruits lot. August entering against him, apartment his on proposed to be used the alone degree entering approach- to privacy invaded the and was seen had been standing object give building apartment him on least to to the at day the two occasions. On the the search. to appellant search warrant was executed Miguel, F.2d In United States v. apartment was alone for at least in the 2) 1965) (n. (2 denied cert. im- he was arrested hours. When 15 L.Ed.2d mediately emerging upon door from the lobby of a multi court that held a key F, Apartment he of had a to apartment pro within the was not tenant apartment person. on his sig dwelling, appellant’s tection of nificantly stated: argument government’s that standing appellant to be apartment not entitled “Miguel is not own the did cause he arrested and served with was on the The tenant sixteenth floor. Lewis, hall search warrant immediate allowed Almerio who was Miss ly apartment merit. stay outside is without appellant to to there from time stated, As factor keep determinative This time and his clothes there. 41(e) assessing appellant’s gave standing constitutional him under Rule right privacy, consequently his object to a of to to Fed.Rules Cr.Proc. legal standing object search, to is his apartment Miss to search right premises. fact these use Lewis.” appellant in the act of volun that was Foster v. tarily leaving apartment when served using 1960) (8 person we held a right not to be on these does weaken his of a con- back room tavern with the premises. Appellant’s constitution basic wife, manager, sent of the who was his right privacy be circum al cannot object might standing withholding by expedient of vented though he room search even moment of warrant service until absent and his wife consented leaving is in the the accused act search. premises to be searched. Jones, Miguel, and We believe Consequently, we believe evidence Foster, clearly is indicate judge trial established before the right premises to use the is a factor sufficient interest had standing. If determinative of the defend aggrieved” “person premises to be legally occupying, ant or has been standing search, has and thus granted right premises, occupy sufficiency question raise though physically present even ishe supporting showing probable cause search, time then his the warrant. privacy has been invaded a search CAUSE PROBABLE premises. aggriev person these As a so right object, ed The United States Commissioner he the search has issuing allege spe warrant believed and to the search do so he his need not owner, proprietary e., cific the information the affidavit interest, i. lessee, to believe invitee, there cause business he etc. Nor is being required the described law violated to take the stand to establish particular premises. interest. right us, appellant’s appeal duty In the case before Our on this premises independent

to be is established make our determination allegations duty solely probable from the in- in the inference of cause. Our dictment, of the statements affidavit determination whether limited support warrant, search the Commissioner the information before

880 legally capable persuading him, of 4. The affiant stated was that the F.B.I. caution, man reasonable a a had been informed reliable in- being “operating Spinelli United laws of the States formant a part accepting wagers of this con violation dis- violated with handbook seminating wagering being sisting illegal anof act committed * * Wong premises. telephones Sun on the described means of the States, 479, 471, 371 U.S. 83 v. United agree if individual these 407, (1963); 441 Brine S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d pieces information were viewed in gar States, 160, v. United isolation, probably inde each would not 1302, (1949). S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. pendently support war a constitutional However, they should be so rant. If the information in the affi totality, When viewed in their viewed. they together totality, davit, provided in its the Com relatively composite form a missioner with basis a substantial to con visiting picture appellant the described gambling being clude that a business was conducting purpose apartment for the premises ap conducted on and the gambling warrant activities. See the engaged pellant interstate travel Whiting, approved in United States v. therewith, nothing in connection more is (4 1962), denied 372 F.2d 191 Cir. cert. required finding of us. The of the Com 935, 83 9 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. Rugendorf missioner must be sustained. in Hernandez v. United and the arrest States, 528, 533, v. United (9 States, 627-628 353 F.2d (1964); Jones L.Ed.2d 1008, 86 cert. denied 384 U.S. v. United 16 L.Ed.2d 1021. 4 L.Ed.2d 697 seemingly innocuous bits As a series viewing Upon all of the informa web evidence can combine to form a tion in the affidavit we do not believe sufficient of circumstantial evidence say, law, we can as a matter of that the justify jury conviction, in same conclusion reached the Commissioner independent facts can manner combine is without and could substantial basis sufficiently picture a clear of a form possibly be drawn a “neutral and probable justify violation of law magistrate”. detached warrant Thus the magistrate issuing a constitutional upheld. must be Pinkerman, warrant. United States v. affidavit, establish essential 1967). (4 374 F.2d See crime, forth element federal sets also, States, 104 United Christensen v. repeated observations of interstate travel. U.S.App.D.C. 35, 192, 193 evidentiary Four additional facts tend (1958); Hernandez support finding Commis- supra, page 353 F.2d at sioner that there is cause repeated afternoon visits to an illegal gambling believe activities were away home, apartment could from one’s taking place premises. on the described However, many legal purposes. well have 1. The set forth in detail affidavit slightly suspicious it is a warrant- fact appellant’s repeated approxi- visits note, some on added takes mately the same time in afternoon significance coupled when with other apartment to an his home. that was not Pointing out known quently fre- factors. 2. The affidavit set forth informa- apartment tele- visited two has telephone company tion from the received phones suspicion. a bit more to the adds apartment by appellant that this visited legal Though may one numerous w;ith telephones had two num- different independent telephone uses lines bers. private apartment they in a some- are unusual, personal suspicious what degree 3. The are affiant recited telephones multiple knowledge gambler, are gambling op- bookmaker, gamb- common characteristic and an associate person frequently eration. When a who lers and bookmakers.

881 1966); (8 679, States, 684 365 F.2d tele- apartment with the visits the U.S.App. States, 112 gambler, Jackson v. United book- phones known be a is (1962). 194, 260, 197 302 F.2d gamblers and D.C. an associate of maker and bookmakers, begin vague suspicions is Indeed, even evidence less taking gambling may be form that take place justifying probable cause needed for the apartment. in this prob of warrant than the issuance hearsay Finally, information when the an officer for cause able provided, coming is from one sworn to Aguilar State v. without a warrant. act reliable, gambler who be that the known Texas, supra; United v. Johnson of apartment phones with two visits the 67, States, . L.Ed. 10, 92 68 333 U.S. S.Ct actually conducting gambling activities is exigencies (1948). of law en 436 The setting phones, over these forth exact applying of an forcement demand that numbers, telephone es- believe these prove, full-blown in a ficer need not validly ripen suspicions tablished could has, suspect plenary hearing, gambling into a reasonable belief that a doubt, beyond committed a a reasonable being prem- business is conducted on the only demon He need violation of law. magistrate A ises. warrant who issues a dealing probability. areWe strate of the basis this is cer- using proof a threshold herein with abusing tainly process. not the warrant layman’s is more sus terms that than law, said, Nor it be matter of could as a obviously than cer picion far but less is independ- that he not could have made an tainty. ent determination of the issue. An in- upon Aguilar Relying primarily dependent magistrate determination of a argues Texas, supra, appellant v. State interposed has indeed been between hearsay in from the statement police. that the former, citizen and the McDonald v. affidavit, can as the core States, 191, 451, United 335 69 U.S. S.Ct. finding probable support cause. not (1948). 93 L.Ed. 153 It well think not. established We argued course, be that this Of it could may as the serve informer statements certainty. long way evidence is a probable the statements cause if basis are, dealing however, with cer- not “reasonably corroborated are tainty, probable cause, but with and: brought to the attention matters” * * dealing “In cause States, magistrate. 362 Jones v. United very implies, as the probabilities. name we deal with 257, 725, 697 4 L.Ed.2d 80 S.Ct. U.S. technical; These are States, 356 (1960); v. United Rosencranz they practical are the factual and con- Hodgdon 1967); 310, (1 v. 314 Cir. everyday siderations of life on which 1966). (8 States, 365 F.2d 679 United men, legal prudent reasonable and technicians, McCray In recent v. State case proof act. standard 1056, Illinois, accordingly correlative to what must 20, 1967), (March inform- L.Ed.2d Brinegar proved.” be United v. McCray would officers that ant told particular given corner on a street be (1949). L.Ed. posses- be time that he would appointed time At of narcotics. sion sus is more than Probable cause designated cor- McCray appeared at the picion, the evidence is far less than pointed officers out ner and justify Locke conviction. sufficient arrested The officers informant. the McCray 3 L.Ed. 7 Cranch v. United and discover- without a warrant fact, evidence majority narcotics. may ed support en of a warrant consist Mc- Supreme the fact Court held hearsay tirely incom or otherwise he Cray informant said where the Aguilar petent v. State evidence. un- circumstance would was sufficient Texas, derlying information to informant’s Hodgdon (1964); L.Ed.2d 723 us, informant, before give probable nec- In the case the cause the officers the reliable, to essary who was sworn be stated arrest. make a constitutional to “operating Spinelli and a handbook was similarly Draper Very disseminating wagers accepting and 3 L.Ed. wagering by the of information means given (1959), the were 2d telephones 4-0029 WYdown [numbered] they description would man told of a were 4-0136.” and WYdown carrying officers When the be narcotics. simply ap- cannot be appointed place This at the to went the It is they recognized petitioner classified as a conclusion. a state- pointed time imprimatur of a given by ment no by description that entails them the in- the legal bring being, concept nor to into nothing they ar- more formant. With analysis expert. require of an does it the and without a warrant rested using simple fact, of It is a subjected statement Su- him to a search. The simple cannot be direct and words that preme the officers Court determined that to lower level of inference. probable reduced when had the cause preferable course, it Of would have been reliability informer’s verified the was state- if the informer had buttressed his ap- by they actually of the what observed to ment with additional information as pellant’s presence personal appear- and knowledge acquired how he of these ance. shortcoming But does anything facts. this consistently The Court has demanded mean that his statement higher showing probable cause when of summary. simple than a factual acting the officer is a warrant without underlying Furthermore, ac than it if the war- the would the issuance of curacy hearsay statement is cor followed consideration of this rant the detached by independent judicial the information from the an Yet we roborated telephone company of officer. telephone Supreme note that both of these Court the by the are involved arrests made without war- numbers recited the informer cases rants, by uncovering actually in in existence and searches followed numbers McCray incriminating apartment. in each As evidence. And stalled only Draper reliability inform informer’s and the of the substantiation of the appellants further sub er’s information is even information was by place specified personal of observations were at a time and stantiated agents. They Spinelli Draper (plus enter observed the informer the accused very phones given by apartment corresponded description where the to a located, informer). by specified personal informant observation illegal eases, course, consequently ac the officers these of es- and where tivity was, according degree reliability the informer’s tablished to a the basic taking information, place. Fi informer, supposedly of no but added corrobora- allegedly conclusionary underlying justification nally, infor tion gambling Spinelli pos- mation factual the accuseds regardless statement that substantiated, premises de these gree, sessed But narcotics. repeated higher Spinelli’s substantially probable the fact of standard visits, telephones, presence cause without war- demanded actions knowledge rants, personal and affiant these arrests were sanctioned gambler Certainly, Spinelli an as was a the corroboration Court. gamblers. these believe sociate statement in these two the informers’ presented are to the Commissioner cases is far less detail corrobora- facts than the stronger McCray and us, far than those tive facts before which substantiate solidly Draper they reliability and that combine both the basic informer’s confirm, verify support, substantiate accuracy factual statement that reliability accuracy in conducting gambling Spinelli opera- premises. former’s tions on statement. brought an the attention be drawn The conclusion * * * [magistrate]. if Applying the fact

analysis clear. of these cases is had been of such a surveillance higher cause results standard magis- presented appropriately applied case be- must than would, course, present upheld us, Supreme trate has Court fore entirely Draper police McCray different case.” ac- in official and justi- supported by far factual tion less As and circumstances other facts Consequently, that Court unless fication. presented the Commissioner in degree requires higher of substantia- a presents us, “an we before believe it case cause, probable a standard of tion to lower con- entirely is not ease” and different they declare would we must assume Aguilar. See, v. Minovitz trolled In the warrant to be constitutional. U.S.App.D.C. 21, 298 112 McCray holdings light in and (1962). F.2d 682 Draper, if we were to strike down the 152, Riggan Virginia, 86 384 v. would in the before we warrant case us 1378, (1966) does 43 16 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. nothing exacting requiring a be more standard position. The Court to alter that probable pre- cause when the officers opinion, Riggan, down struck in without magistrate their information to a sent curtly recited that an affidavit which authority of a warrant and act on up application for a warrant based by him if the issued we would than “on, prem [p] ersonal observation of the with- (cid:127)officers acted this information be from sources and information ises securing not out This is and a warrant. reliable.” Cer lieved tainly, not should be the law. Riggan is in this information Aguilar Appellant contends v. that little, any, con bare if better than the Texas, contrary. supra, State of Aguilar; far and is condemnedin clusion Aguilar is We do not believe that it is. in found detailed recital less than the only general principles a caveat to the us. Nor we believe before do affidavit governing probable and is not re cause Gillespie that v. United Aguilar placement principles. of those (8 1966) In that 1 Cir. is determinative. specific in was directed situation orally stating case that we held solely upon which a warrant was based wager magistrate suspect had a hearsay party conclusion of a third ing stamp had “obtained and affiant informant, majority and the found that suspect] was information he [the “underlying without elaboration cir business”, currently gambling in the cumstances” this bare could conclusion probable cause was insufficient provide magistrate not with the sub residence. warrant to search his finding stantial basis for a probable However, forth, most, Riggan Gillespie cause. is noth hearsay there and set ing Aguilar Riggan in evidentiary that a holds con- two elements. probative value, conclusion (1) (with- has no personal and tained: observation coupled pieces observed), (2) when stating with of infor out what and (without mation that re tend substantiate the informant’s specifying liability conclusion, information). of that a valid war may Sigler, Gillespie rant not (1) Gillespie be issued. Miller v. had affiant stated: (8 1965), (2) F.2d 424 gambling stamp, denied cert. an informant currently Gillespie 16 L.Ed.2d stated that Aguilar fact, (failing 1 in gambling footnote to set business specifically being stated: con- forth where the business was However, reveal, ducted). us “The case before does nor record is it

claimed, pieces informa- other information have not bare Clark, Riggan opinion 1. This Mr. Justice information was taken from facts per Commonwealth, majority’s dissenting curiam 206 Va. 144 S.E. issuing 1) actually (n. 2d before There is reversal was nothing magistrate. indicate the recital of facts, procedural technicality evidentiary tion, dismissed on a or four justice being dispensed being explained upon in detail the merits. each fact Riggan approximated in either even holdings Aguilar We believe the Gillespie. Gillespie coupled with established law for determination of suf- cause Though there we are convinced ficiently protect privacy of indi- justification for Commis was solid hastily viduals from conceivedintrusions. action, assume sioner’s even if we question, to be a close the Commissioner’s Fourth Amendment was a significant weight, finding entitled to reaction to the evils of the use Ramirez, United States v. 279 F.2d general England warrant (2 denied 364 U.S. cert. Colonies, writs of assistance close L.Ed.2d against protect was intended invasions tip cases the decisions should in favor privacies into the of under life indis In hold warrant’s issuance. so general authority. Warden, criminate ing the Court in United States v. Ven Maryland Penitentiary Hayden, 387 tresca, 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1965) L.Ed.2d stated: (May 29,1967). teachings Certainly, unjustified “If the of Court’s cases we no have in- are be privacies Spinelli’s followed the constitu- vasion into and life policy served, general tional authority. for affidavits under a was no This * * * haphazard search Spinelli’s warrants must be intrusion into af- by magistrates interpreted agents meticulously tested and fairs. observed and courts a commonsense and his interstate travel and his attendance * * * gambling realistic fashion. requirements op- Technical at the indicated scene specificity erations, they investigated of elaborate had plead- once exacted under common the extent law to corroborate the ings proper place have no area. from this received various grudging negative A or attitude re- sources. viewing courts toward will warrants There is no evidence in this discourage police tend to officers from disregard Spinel case of an officious submitting judicial their evidence to a personal rights any li’s regard constitutional acting.” officer before Spinelli. of harassment of Those positive We believe is a this indication engaged illegal activities do not and Supreme unwillingness Court’s any greater rights should than expand requirements further and law-abiding citizens. Law enforcement technical burdens for a constitutional charged duty officials are certainly warrant and is sound advice responsibility investigating be those that should be heeded. our nei- view engaging activity lieved of in criminal Aguilar Riggan ther demand a revers- legal search warrant is tool but a al of this case. If we were to strike efficacy of enforcement. Its should down the warrant now before us by super-technical requirements be eroded taking significant would step be be- trials, that cause two one on the issue of yond specific demands of these cases guilt proving obtaining admissible before acting derogation and would be in direct by way evidence of a search warrant —a of the clear instructions in Ventresca. procedural issue, and one on issue of guilt. protects the Probable cause inno If hyper- we were to demand further cent and need not serve a shield requirements ap- technical we would guilty. proach pitfalls the now discarded of com- significant pleading any mon law believe increase which the ritualistic already meaning- placed upon essentially recitation of secur- a few demands the ing less, words”, unnecessary apparently “magical are un- but a valid warrant being pro- present law, made the der the unneeded for the difference because a case rights privacy, must the individ- time” be determined of individual tection dangerous enforce- law ual of each case. to effective circumstances was valid- the warrant We believe ment. allegation upon A warrant is issued ly issued. existing presently facts, does as such not allow at leisure execution THE WARRANT EXECUTION OF police police, of invest nor does it ficers with the discretion execute securing warrant After search days be warrant within ten time Commissioner from the States advantage them to be most lieved the Chieftain officers went federal U.S. ous. Mitchell v. United They ap- Apartments. arrived at Manor (con (1958) App.D.C. p. proximately stationed 4:55 m. curring opinion). apartment in an across themselves apartment to be searched. from hall requiring A court warrant is a order Spinel- p. They when m. waited until 7:05 perform a func- ministerial emerging Apartment F. seen li was They lee- be certain tion. must allowed Spinelli arrested and time At this way duty, performance Apartment F searched. diligent- they required likewise must be ly perform according com- to the court’s 41(e) Appellant points to Rule days may lapse up to A ten mand. Fed.R.Crim.P., war which demands delay is caused reasonable when to command the officer rants “shall distance, weather, conditions, in- traffic * * Appellant forthwith search ability premises person to the or locate hour, ten minute contends the two safety, searched, personal to be etc. delay in the of the warrant execution However, may delay be of a few hours required “search as not a forthwith” was diligent police not unreasonable if the are by war- the rule commanded the executing purpose in the the warrant and rant, in the search and the evidence seized rights delay prejudice to the suppressed. be should suspect. of a agree. 41(c) (d), We do Rule Appellant points out that after receiv- Fed.R.Crim.P., provide the framework ing police the warrant the officers de- in which for the execution of warrants layed approximately execution for police can be exer- reasonable latitude premises kept hours under while the were Though required are warrants cised. This contends surveillance. “forthwith”, Rule command execution to delay. anwas unreasonable 41(d) may provides be “The warrant least, glance, Certainly, the first at only ten within executed and returned execution of a warrant on the date agree ap- days with after its date.” issue within hours after left the officers ten-day period pellant is this the the Commissioner’s office seem would to Rule, maximum under and the re- the be execution “forthwith.” the Neither “forthwith”, quirement of execution ac- rule, require nor warrant execution cording to the and circumstances facts “immediately.” de- While unreasonable case, may require of each indeed search lay countenanced, cannot be still officers something in less than this and seizure be of ac- must allowed a certain latitude ten-day period. However, care- rule they tion when are the delicate exactly fully to is refuses down what set dangerous of execut- mission sometimes Pre- the term “forthwith”. meant ing case, of- In this had sumably warrants. to this left for courts case-by-ease door the on a Con- ficers knocked at the evidence basis. determine gambling might flush- approach well this be- have been flexible we sistent officers “forth- ed down the commode before a warrant executed lieve that is way into could forced their have if is within a reason- with” it executed light lat- issuance, apartment. after its exceed- able time very this short days. doubtful itude is ten a “reasonable What delay fall, unreasonable consti- All of and thus evidence would this we be- lieve, category tuted a execute “forthwith” failure to within the broad “bookmaking required paraphernalia” rule and the warrant. set forth govern- the warrant. As stated However, reasonableness of brief, ment’s “Certain records are to be conduct in this and ex the officers’ case kept, made, computations calls be actly many how or minutes a hours determined, money dispensed, be to be delay police is allowed to officer execu ascertained, times to be re- results to be prejudice suspect tion to of a we sporting engage- ceived from various object To failure need not decide. ments.” All of the seized items police “search forthwith” instrumentalities of the facets various complaining party point must to some bookmaking prop- business and were “bookmaking parapher- legal prejudice definite attributable erly seized as unjustified delay. The fact that the nalia.” prejudicial uncovered search evidence complaint “bookmaking To the standing pres does not invest unless the paraphernalia” unconstitutionally ence of the evidence is attributable to vague, delay. reply Unjustified must attempts that law enforce the police practically way ment prejudice officials suspect by delay no ascertaining of exactly provide standing advance of search execution do not un innocent, police everyday what sort of less the are successful in their ef equipment Investigative materials and utilized for forts. technics of gaming purposes might hypothetical private be in a harms no invest dwelling. standing expect suppress The law cannot evidence seized impossible. When otherwise lawful search. circumstances description crime make an exact upheld appellant’s standing As we have the fruits and instrumentalities a virtual challenge constitutionality impossibility, searching officer can though warrant even he was the hall only expected generic to describe the apartment, ap- outside the and since seeking. degree of class items he is The pellant othei; pos- has no demonstrated specificity, thus, vary of must with the prejudice sible attributable to the two type and with circumstances of items lapse, appellant hour not we do believe specificity required to be seized. any proper grounds object has goods identity for the seizure of whose delay. short knowm, goods, is such stolen should not DESCRIPTION THE be OF PROP- demanded when officers are search ing for gaming ERTY such SEIZED items as secreted equipment, identity of which cannot specified The warrant for seizure specifically ascertained. Calo v. “bookmaking paraphernalia, scratch States, (1 United 338 F.2d 793 sheets, tabs, sheets, pay bet and collection 1964); States, Nuckols v. United 69 U.S. bookmaking records, schedules, baseball App.D.C. 120, (1938), 99 F.2d 353 cert. received, books and records of bets ac- 626, denied 305 S.Ct. 83 L.Ed. counts, ledger sheets, bookmaker’s two 401. telephones.” Among describing the items seized We believe a warrant appellant simply contends the items to are included in be seized as “book specified making are, paraphernalia”, the above items an Under under cir adding machine, pencil cumstances, sharpener, par wood a describes with sufficient deposit ticularity goods a stack of blank tickets on the for which the Wellston, searching. Bank of a are State G.E. Am-FM The items under seized radio, authority warrant, clearly currency, pair $22.00 glasses, watch, being pads generic graph Timex within the classification of paper, pens, pencils, “bookmaking prop paraphernalia”, four lease of erly premises, telephones. and five received in evidence. supersedes complaint procedure and OF A PRELIMINARY DENIAL necessity preliminary of a HEARING eliminates hearing. United Jaben v. August 18, Appellant was arrested on 14 L.Ed.2d released bond next 1965. He was hearing day preliminary for set and his September Upon motion Appellant Com admits hearing government preliminary was authority grant continu has missioner September 1965 the On continued. argues grant ances, a continu grand jury returned an indictment obtaining purpose in ance for the against appellant. Because of this indict- contrary spirit dictment pre- appellant ment was never afforded very question answered This rules. hearing liminary before Commission- Byrnes contrary Appellant indict- contends that er. (9 as it ment should be dismissed cert. denied 377 U.S. government’s tainted avoid- willful held the rea 739. That case L.Ed.2d hearing. preliminary We do ance of the request government’s for son behind the agree. so, speculation. Even a continuance was grant for of a even week continuance right indictment allowing grand jury purpose in grand jury is, course, a constitutional improper absent show was not dictment protection persons afforded all accused of ing light, legal prejudice. In the same right Standing federal crimes. alone this inherently anything in not see we do prove something to be of a handi could continuing preliminary equitable cap. Waiting pro for the relative slow period hearing of time for short grand jury might cedure indictment intervening grand jury action. allow long require spend arrested individuals to might Though appellant en well periods jail groundless of time in discovery joyed flow benefits charges. 5(c), Rule Fed.R.Crim.P. hearing, preliminary he no has from a complement serves as a the constitu right if benefits the un absolute to these tionally system. necessary grand jury derlying preliminary purpose hear Though preliminary hearing provided supplanted. 5(c) may practical for Rule be a tool us the case As before discovery only accused, re- indictment was free on and the bail legal justification for its is to existence days only the first after turned twelve protect languish innocent accuseds from preliminary hearing, we be- scheduled jail totally baseless accusations. well within lieve the Commissioner was Therefore, may before the accused rights continuing discretionary his grand jury presentment held for Rule hearing. preliminary we On this issue 5(c) requires government justify to go need no further. prelimi proving its incarceration in a nary hearing judicial before a officer THE INDICTMENT is there cause to believe the charges charged Appellant in accused committed the offense. 772, States, of de Barrett is v. United 270 F.2d dictment laced with multitude (8 1959). grand According appellant 18 jury Cir. U.S.C. 775 If the fects. re based, prior pre 1952, turns indictment is a true bill to the time a on which the § give liminary hearing vague adequate held, pur so it does not the whole is pose his justification preliminary thus the law and violates of the notice right hearing process under has to due been Vincent constitutional satisfied. v. Every (8 States, 1964), court United 337 891 Fifth Amendment. F.2d Cir. rejected argument it. 988, 1363, has cert. 380 this denied 85 faced with U.S. S.Ct. grand jury common terms of 14 L.Ed.2d 281. Action The statute embraces returning understanding brings describes a clear indictment for charges against Consequently, mal accused and standard conduct. thus 888 mandatory language. permissive, statute on which this indictment is based not vague. unconstitutionally govern- grant requiring is not Bass v. The of relief (8 States, charge 324 F.2d 168 Cir.

United ment to narrow its elect 1963); Zizzo, segments precise United 338 F.2d States v. statute which (7 1964), relying resting 577 Cir. cert. denied 381 U.S. it is is a matter in the 435; 1530, court, 85 S.Ct. 14 L.Ed.2d sound discretion of the trial Center, States, subject Turf Inc. v. United 325 exercise of which is to review (9 1963); States, F.2d 793 Smith, United Cir. States v. Pointer unless abused. v. United (E.D.Ill.1962). F.Supp. 209 38 L.Ed. held, As ade- the indictment Though the makes indictment quately informed the accused charge its in one and is count framed charges against slight him. diffi- language appel of 18 U.S.C. § culty preparing a defense such alleges 7(c) lant it violates Rule broadly charges worded does out- Fed.R.Crim.P., requires “plain, which weigh difficulty potential preju- concise and definite written statement government being dice faced constituting the essential facts the of presentations forced to limit re- its charged.” fense An indictment couched proof. stricted area of No abuse of dis- is, statute, terms of the as this one cretion has been shown. usually comply considered to with the Reynolds States, rule. United v. 225 F.2d attempt approach In an (5 1955), 123 Cir. cert. denied 350 U.S. problem appel route, from an alternate 801; 100 L.Ed. Brown government supply moved that lant States, (9 v. United 222 F.2d 293 Cir. particulars pursuant him with a bill of 1955). 7(f) Rule Fed.R.Crim.P. excel Justice) Judge opinion (later lent good An indictment is if it in Smith, 16 Whittaker in United States forms the defendant of the offense with (W.D.Mo.1954), es F.R.D. 374-375 charged which he is spec with sufficient general principles in this tablishes the ificity to prepare enable him to de his regard. proper bill It is the office of a protects against fense and jeopardy. him future particulars, Rood v. United “ ‘to furnish defendant further (8 cert. denied 381 charge respecting 14 L.Ed.2d 287. stated in the indictment when neces- indictment, believe this framed in the defense, sary preparation statute, terms up measures to that prejudicial surprise at the avoid standard. Turf Center, Inc. v. United trial’, for those and when (9 1963); 325 F.2d 793 granted though purposes, is to be even Teemer, F.Supp. States v. furnishing requires informa- (N.D.West ‘the 1963). Va. tion in other circumstances appel In much the same vein required eviden- would not be because alleges lant * * the trial should court tiary nature,’ government required to elect policy This liberal followed when was precisely provision under what of the granted partial relief to the trial court appellant being charged. statute was government appellant ordering to According appellant to the indictment dates, location, inform of the him charges gov a multitude of sins and the alleged gam- operation method of of the ap ernment should elect as to whether bling activity. This, believe, fur- we pellant promoting, managing, was or or appellant in- nished the additional establishing carrying or on the unlawful necessary prepare formation to his de- activity designated. 14, Rule Fed.R. prejudicial surprise. fense and avoid Crim.P., governing gives joinders, Dis power grant appellant’s requests, trict Court The to “re balance of justice however, requires”, properly lief A re- but is framed denied. mally supply inform required such appellant’s portion motion to fused of sought to defendant. ation the criminal as “exact na- information to request this was trial court’s of which” denial ture manner and details of the powers. permissive Bohn management, promotion, well within its establish- (8 facilitating States, Cir. ment, on, 260 F.2d 773 carrying v. United 1958), performed. gambling activity cert. As denied was government to advise L.Ed.2d 304. under order appellant in con- facts in Appellant contends charge, properly in- he nection with charge within a crime did not dictment formed. was, spirit he or intent as of § hand, granting ap- On the of other most, gambler single small-time pellant’s request severely would have the engaged enter business an interstate “freezing” damaging gov- effect prise. it a federal 1952 makes Section ernment’s evidence in advance of trial. commerce crime to in interstate travel See, Practice, 8 Moore’s Federal 7.06 § promote with the unlawful activ intent to request sup- The denial [1]. of this ity attempt or commit the and thereafter plementary evidence was not an abuse of “illegal Congress defined unlawful act. the trial court’s broad discretion in this things, activity” among mean, to other Wong area. Tai v. United involving gam “any enterprise business 77, 82, * * * 71 L.Ed. bling laws violation committed.” was] State [it requiring activ than the unlawful Other Appellant also desired to discov gambling, ity, applies it must be it as to exactly government er from how enterprise.” a “business government believed 563.360 § Missouri Revised Statutes was violated. attempt Congress no made is, course, text of statute avail enterprises of differentiate the business appellant, able to and he was also in petty syndicate a national crime dates, formed as exact location to estab attempt made hoodlum. No alleged illegal activity. method of of individuals number lish a minimum government Requiring specify ex involved, neces nor was that had actly how believed violated illegal upon the sary placed dollar amount this require state statute be to would impossible activity. virtually for us It is government legal to disclose either its meaningful judicially specify in theory unnecessary case furnish large operation a rack fashion how evidentiary appellant’s facts toas method comes within he eteer must have before operation. In either case this is spirit prohibitions the clear normally securable a bill long as it is established this section. As particulars, and thus trial court did engaged pro in a defendant not abuse its discretion when the motion activity gambling a “business scribed pertaining request to this was denied. attempt enterprise”, make no will Ansani, (7 States v. 240 F.2d 216 “big op time” line draw a between 1957), cert. denied 353 subject erator, admittedly who is 759; Kempe Ct. 1 L.Ed.2d Unit prohibitions, the “small” the federal ed (8 according appellant, operator, who, cert. denied 331 U.S. from the demands should remain immune 1534, 91 L.Ed. 1864. of the law. admittedly Though Finally, appellant sought en- the statute was in his racketeering, motion the names and acted to interstate addresses of curb persons engaged purposes allegedly gam served the statute are well bling activity. thinly thwarting rack- re time interstate This is small veiled quest expand identity potential for of eteer before a chance wit he has nesses, illegal Therefore, gov- government and the if not nor- activities. (S.D. Kelley, F.Supp. ed v. interstate States ernment can establish Ryan, N.Y.1966); United v. States requisite intent and with the travel (D.Colo.1963). F.Supp. attempt illegal enterprise” no “business exempt less be made us will The substantive violation 4. oper- prosperous enterprenuers from appellant place statute took when ation of this statute. requisite Missouri with the crossed into Spinelli The indicates attempted evidence com or intent and thereafter engaging ain not casual offender illegal was Friday in Missouri. mitted act an night game some of cards with was, therefore, in Mis crime committed a racketeer friends in Missouri. He was Appellant in the Unit souri. was tried regular significant committing viola- and ed Eastern States District Court regu- He made allega the Missouri tions of law. Appellant’s District Missouri. repeated trips the state lar line, across and tion of a Amend violation his Sixth long period time right and over a ment to be tried in district gambling very in a substantial committed, involved which crime has ob prosecuting did officals viously business. The not been violated. bringing powers not abuse their alleged 5. As not that he has charges against Spinelli the trial charge before, has been tried on this validity properly court sustained allegation jeopardy pres- of double has no charge. ent basis. As we held that have vaguely Appellant has rather attacked adequately statute and the indictment constitutionality proscribed § state the nature of the conduct listing by simply based, the indictment is Spinelli charged, fully with which he is explanation protected against without constitu- various jeopardy on future provisions charges. tional he this statute believed protected these He is further repeated violates. jeopardy by the fact that allegation violation of 1952 is § already 1. We held conjunctive. general verdict gives proper statute notice is there- any prosecutions thereon will bar further unconstitutionally vague. fore not respect any particular with legations of the al- equal protection no 2. There is wording embraced in the broad against running actions of of law charge. Inc. Turf v. Center. government. the fact And federal States, supra. United part statute is based federal criminal Finally, upon proscribed see, state law nor conduct we do simply process appellant pointed re be critical does not violate due has lationship out prohibitions of the sev cause of variations law between Center, eral Inc. United the First Amendment states. Turf this statute and 1963). assembly speech. (9 While 325 F.2d 793 Cir. See freedoms of also, Distilling Company protecting expression, v. West Clark all forms valid Maryland Railway Company, protect anti ern this Amendment does government has L.Ed. 326 social conduct which proscribing. interest valid Smith, (E. F.Supp. D. States v. regulating in 3. The statute 1962). Ill. engag purpose terstate travel for the consti the statute is believe illegal controlling activity is with tutional thereon indictment based regulatory powers in the interstate vest is valid. government, ed in the there federal usurpation powers fore is re not a STATEMENTS POST ARREST served to the states the Tenth Amend ap Appellant arrested at Zizzo, ment. United 338 F.2d States v. p. placed (7 proximately m. and was 7:05 cert. denied 381 U.S. following morning City he 1530,14 435; Jail. The 85 L.Ed.2d Unit- defendant, building attempting brought see States before the United was request presence of his for counsel denied. was and Commissioner attorney constitutional was advised of his agents governmental The actions rights. the Commis- Bail was set way, can, be no us in the case before Thereafter, appellant was sioner. while of counsel equated the denial being processed he asked for release being after short time ease. A Escobedo by Deputy Marshal Whit- United States ad- and presented to Commissioner gave an Il- Spinelli he lived. lock where his presence of rights in the his vised Upon presented he linois address. release gave Il- voluntarily attorney, Spinelli Agent and I. Bender to F. B. himself Deputy Whit- Marshal address linois keys. He asked for return some being on released purpose of lock for the keys that one of was to indicated coun- for or request for advice No bond. place he was or the where “residence request for This denied. made or sel staying Both east side [Illinois].” necessary for information administrative trial of these incidents related at and custody proper release appellant’s prove and were introduced to completely and unrelated unlike consequently the residence Illinois in Escobedo. found abuses serious federal travel for a interstate Furthermore, do not believe we Appellant objects crime. to this evidence appel- request information violates for on the in Miranda basis of decisions against privilege Amendment Fifth lant’s Arizona, 86 S. v. State 384 U.S. re- Appellant was self-incrimination. (1966), Es- 16 L.Ed.2d Ct. bond, if but' quired release on to ask for Illinois, cobedo v. State 378 U.S. governmental have officials released 84 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 977 know public to right duty to the Appellant was convicted in tried and Appellant appellant can found. where March, 1966. Ari- Miranda v. State put to him questions not answer need zona was decided June John- incrim- might they to his lead if he feels Jersey, son v. State of New to an- ination, he has decided once (1966) 16 L.Ed.2d 882 retroactively may claim he swer pro- decided that should have Miranda Neither privilege has been violated. his spective application only. Thus, Miranda we Escobedo, of which other case nor play part need no consideration ques- asking aware, forbids are of the case before us. Escobedo State produce they simply could because tions pre-dated Spinelli’s Illinois trial and incriminating evidence. requirements its apply applica- if would argues he was Appellant ble to issue raised. incriminating be himself coerced into exclusionary rule found Es- would cause his refusal answer cobedo, many cases, as in is founded being bail. denied in his resulted largely upon proposition gov- that the appellant was Though admit respect ernment must the constitutional choice, it was difficult faced with a rights protect of its citizens. To individ- necessarily made. had to be choice that rights ual the evidence obtained in de- prior to release Address rogation thereof is not admissible necessity the ef bond is an absolute Therefore, exclusionary courts. for the system. bail ficent administration apply herein, rule prove need ac for this information When asked some by govern- unconstitutional actions weigh competing circum must cused mental officials. he course decide stances should take. In Escobedo the defendant was not brought magistrate before a way or advised In much the same the accused right though to remain testify silent. Even trial must decide whether specifically requested he subject the advise of his himself to cross examination attorney attorney and his Simply remain certain silent. because

892 waiving gained by advantages explained jury to the ex- are be various to the rights testimony hibits the does not mean and in course of Amendment his Fifth opinion coerced. The ad- offered his these exhibits that their that waiver wagers. vantage consequence recording of were used of which flows as a Appellant distinguished testimony usurp- co- contends the law must be this promises duty jury. ed a ercive or from individ- threats decides ual officers. If an accused indicates of the record An examination matter of to furnish infor- as a free will practiced here- gambling form a to obtain mation and relevant markers, using complex in is a business bail, as a release on it does follow area, be- symbols. It is an codes and in- matter of constitutional law by, com- lieve, if not understood little him. formation was coerced from ju- average unintelligible to, pletely explanation inter- ror. believe statement, one second jury pretation to the of these exhibits given Agent given Bender, after they necessity if are almost an absolute Spinelli had been on bond. This released enlightened such, As to reach an verdict. was volunteered proper in which area we believe this is any interrogation. result of Further expertise may exercised, proper- be more, appellant free on bond ly may opinion qualified expert his offer place conversation de did not take while concerning oper- on matters relevant custody police. fendant was in gambling enterprise. ation United of a simply application Escobedo has no (7 Altiere, 119 States 343 v. F.2d this set of circumstances. grounds 1965), Cir. vacated other It is our conclusion that neither of 382 15 L.Ed.2d U.S. pieces of evidence were obtained vio 420; Saussele, State v. S.W.2d appellant’s right lation of or to counsel (Mo.1954). derogation of his from self- freedom evidence appellant admits While See, incrimination. v. United States the one other than of criminal acts Zizzo, (7 1964) 338 F.2d cert. Cir. charged intent may introduced to show denied 381 85 S.Ct. charged offense or element Spinelli's preceded L.Ed.2d 435. trial As Compton, 355 F.2d (See, v. United States the decision in Miranda v. State of Ari-‘ (6 cert. denied zona, we need not decide whether 548) he 16 L.Ed.2d positive arresting placed upon of duties gambling evidence contends admissibility ficers would affect location place at a different took the evidence herein. earlier seven months Louis some St. dis We admissible. is too remote to be OF ADMISSION EVIDENCE agree. rejection The admission generally offered important evidence matter is a elements Two largely charged left within the neces discretion of crime are travel with sary trial ille court. Cotton v. United an intent and the existence 673, 676, 1966). (8 gal gambling enterprise”. The F.2d We have “business appellant’s objections gambling appellant prior viewed connection of admission and feel activity evidence neither tends conducted elsewhere finding by prove purpose warrants us that the trial of innocent the lack present court abused its discretion. tends to It venture. further prove contin he in a was involved Appellant objected expert tes uing enterprise” than rather “business timony agent concerning of an B. F. I. single gambling. incident of gambling paraphernalia seized from apartment. being qual After first the time and The remoteness of expert gambling gov going place primarily ified as are matters identified, weight admissibility interpreted ernment witness than the rather wording Only the evidence. if the remoteness de of the statute this is a facet stroys probative part prohibition the evi worth of the broader dence, rejected, against gambling. need it be and this is left trial matter discretion Furthermore, language King court. objectionable govern- required finds (8 1944), cert. denied prove only acceptance to the ment not of S.Ct.711, do 89 L.Ed. 1413. We wagers, that as this was all was neces- say not matter of believe we can as a law sary prove violation, to a state law but passage places that the months of seven government required prove ap- the to that prior activity the at a time so remote pellant point had furnished odds and destroys probative that it the the value of spreads. expanding Rather than the degree evidence a the trial court appellant charges, govern- statute as the admitting abused it. its discretion required ment was to assume an unnec- See, Medrano v. United essary proof, burden of which was mere (9 cert. denied surplusage that inured to the benefit of L.Ed.2d 1258. appellant. SUFFICIENCY THE OF

INSTRUCTION EVIDENCE determining sufficiency of evidence Among things 563.360 § support guilty, a verdict of the evi- Statutes, of Missouri Revised light dence must be viewed a most “* * * provides: [A]ny per V.A.M.S. government. favorable to the We be- registers son in this or who state records validly sup- lieve the evidence so viewed wager pools upon a or or bet sells the ports appellant’s conviction. * * * results of trial or contest There are basic three elements shall, conviction, adjudged guilty on * * charged: the federal crime felony a travel; 1. Interstate jury The Court instructed (to direct, Intent promote, 2. or man- follows: age illegal business); you, jury, “If find and believe (in attempting par- Overt act beyond from evidence reason- ticipating illegal business). in the able doubt the defandant did engage wagers accepting Appellant on athletic sufficiency admits furnishing contests and in odds or travel, evidence interstate his point spreads sufficiency on athletic contests as a contests the of the evidence enterprise, you indicating business then I instruct intent at the time of travel activity that such following violates the law or the overt act travel. Missouri, as set out in Section 563.360 government prove To intent of the Missouri Revised Statutes properly appel introduced evidence of 1959 [V.A.M.S.].” gambling prior lant’s involvement in a Appellant alleges that this instruction operation place which took some seven is erroneous in that Missouri law does charged months here before offense illegal furnishing not declare to be “the present in. The evidence of the viola point spreads of odds and on athletic con- appellant periodically tion indicates that tests.” apartment, visited it this indicates registering gambling obviously operations does statute forbid the selling taking pools, place Though of bets and the therein. there wagers” “accepting instruction cor- some evidence that came into rectly certainly broker, related law of Missouri this Missouri visit Further, point. part allowing included there sufficient evidence wagers” might “accepting jury purpose well be the infer furnishing point spreads. trip gambling by op of odds and was motivated Though specifically not forbidden This fact re- eration. was an issue of support against appellant jury the search war- and submitted solved provide basis rant did substantial us. disturbed not be will for its issuance. indicated act is Proof of overt majority opinion concedes that proof appellant’s num- inference presence apartment, apartment proof “visits” this visits erous telephones searched of the two in the apartment re- the scene of

that this personal apartment, gambling the affiant’s comprehensive ac- cent and knowledge day appel- was a defendant of his arrest tivities. On most, gambler are, key estab- apart- known lant had door such, they suspicions. are lished As this- ment and was room alone probable cause gambling constitute paraphernalia sufficient to over two well certainly warrant. for the issuance of search This evidence would hours. 339, crossing States, 7 jury Locke v. United Cranch. infer after allow to that Pigg (1819); intent, United 3 364 See v. requisite L.Ed. into Missouri with the appellant 1964); (8th 302, States, 305 Cir. 337 F.2d attempted or acts committed 633, States, management, v. 291 Crochran United F.2d promotion, in the establish- 1961). (8th activity carrying gambling 636 Cir. ment or on of that violation of Missouri law. All however, “suspi- argues, It that proved needs be is some overt act di- ripened probable cause into cions” were illegal gambling activity. It rected to the that F.B.I. affiant’s statement actually is not re- informed an unidentified had been receiving placing be witnessed wager. Spinelli “operat- liable informant supports The con- evidence wagers ing accepting and handbook viction. disseminating wagering informa- and telephones as-

Judgment tion” means of affirmed. signed and numbers WYdown 4-0029 HEANEY, Judge, Circuit with whom WYdown 4-0136. OOSTERHOUT, Judge, VAN Circuit argues “suspi- Conversely, it concurs, dissenting: the conclu- cions” served to corroborate respectfully opin- We dissent. our informant and sions unidentified ion, decisions the United States reliability. establish Riggan Supreme Virginia, Court in 384 v. agree cannot either conten- 152, 1378, 86 16 43 U.S. L.Ed.2d S.Ct. tion. (1966), Ventresca, United 380 States v. right1 741, 102, 85 The Fourth Amendment’s U.S. S.Ct. 13 L.Ed.2d 684 Texas, against (1965) Aguilar people and to be secured unrea- State of v. 108, persons, 1509, 378 searches of their 84 12 L.Ed.2d sonable U.S. S.Ct. (1964), houses,2 effects, papers, Mapp 723 v. and of this and the decision 1684, States, Ohio, 643, Gillespie 6 L.Ed. Court in 368 367 81 v. United U.S. S.Ct. States, (8th (1961); require 1 2d 1081 Weeks United reversal v. 341, 383, 392, of the 232 U.S. 58 L.Ed. Court the affidavit 34 S.Ct. District Supreme up- 2. The The Fourth Amendment reads: Court has refused right people criminal “The to be secure otherwise unreasonable hold commercial, persons, houses, papers, merely rath- in their searches because against effects, residential, premises er object were the unreasonable searches than seizures, violated, shall not v. be intrusions. See issue, upon prob- City Seattle, 541, no shall Warrants 387 U.S. 87 S.Ct. cause, 1737, (1967); supported by Go-Bart able Oath or af- 18 L.Ed.2d 943 States, firmation, particularly describing Importing 282 Co. v. U.S. United (1931); place per- 344, 153, searched, be and the 51 S.Ct. L.Ed. 75 374 States, 313, things 41 Amos v. United sons or to be seized.” 255 U.S. 266, policy expressed (1921); L.Ed. 654 Silver- this amendment S.Ct. 65 expression States, in Rule the Fed- thorne Lumber Co. v. United 251 finds 41 385, 182, L.Ed. Rules of Procedure. 64 319 eral Criminal (1920).

895 support- underlying guilty circumstances (1914), as well extends to 652 conclusions, and his be- the affiant’s United as the innocent. McDonald v. any 453, 191, involved was States, 451, lief informant 93 335 U.S. S.Ct. (1948); or his reliable. credible L.Ed. 153 Hobson v. Rug- Ventresca, supra; 1955). States, 890, (8th United States v. 226 F.2d 528, States, endorf v. United 376 U.S. While the use of search warrants 825, (1964); Gil- S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 887 encouraged, Ven- United States v. States, lespie supra. See v. United magistrate tresca, supra, per- must (1966). Annot. 10 A.L.R.3d 359 neutrally; form his duties he “must not Applying the standards set forth merely stamp serve for the as a rubber Ventresca, Rugendorf Gillespie police.” Id., at S.Ct. case, present 746; Aguilar Texas, supra, informant’s statement State it 1509; is clear it not sufficient 378 U.S. at Giorde- S.Ct. justify finding cause nello v. United 357 U.S. magistrate. (1958); affidavit 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 contained: Johnson v. United 92 L.Ed. (1) upon Failed set basis forth “ * * * magistrate’s magistrate It is not which the could an inde- form function, merely therefore, pendent opinion deter- re- the informant’s seeking mine liability, whether the official the or on which he could that find probable warrant believes that cause the had informant information furnished exists; rather, magistrate past proved must in the which had to be re- presented per- ask whether the facts liable. probable suade Mm that there is cause. Illinois, McCray In v. 386 State U.S. ” * ** Rogers United ex rel. States 300, (1967), 1056, 87 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 62 Warden, 30874, Cir., 15, v. No. 2d June Supreme where in- Court found 1967, 381 F.2d 209. reliable, formant be the informant had furnished information to officers proceeding by A search warrant is a forty times, or more which information one, Sgro States, drastic v. United 287 proved past had to be reliable in the 206, 210, 138, 53 S.Ct. 77 L.Ed. 260 resulted in conviction. had (1932), carefully and must be circum- Boyd States, scribed. v. United 116 U.S. Rogers And, in United ex rel. States v. 616, 524, (1886). 6 S.Ct. 29 L.Ed. 746 Warden, 209, supra, 381 F.2d rev’d grounds, the Second Circuit found general principles mind, With these the unidentified informant to be reliable magistrate we consider whether the here on the basis that indicated affidavit probable had cause to issue a warrant he that had furnished information in the Apartment search F of the Chieftain past three which had resulted in convic- Apartments. Manor Compare tions. United v. Robin- States only As the before the son, (2d 1963); 325 F.2d 391 magistrate when he issued the search States, supra, Cochran v. United where warrant was that set forth in the affi reliability of an informer was held davit, sufficiency of the affidavit not to have been established. Agui must be determined from its face. Vogel, writing Cochran, Judge In Chief Texas, supra, lar v. State of 378 U.S. at Court, for this declared: 1, 109, 1509; n. Giordenello v. “ ‘ States, supra. * * * United tip An uncorroborated hearsay may While identity be re- basis for an informer whose issuance warrant, liability of a search Jones are both not unknown does States, v. United 80 constitute cause to make an (1960), 4 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 697 it is if arrest.’ Contee v. United 1954 upon probable cause, 297], relied U.S.App.D.C. to establish 215 F.2d [94 magistrate Id., must be informed of some 291 F.2d 327.” at ‘spoke personal con- identified source present case The affidavit knowledge.’ appears, allegation For all that only simple that tained merely suspected, here believed source reliable. informant was

unidentified there narcotics or concluded nothing in it from which There was magis- petitioner’s possession. The magistrate determined could ‘judge certainly here could in- trate reliable furnished had the informant persuasiveness any himself facts past, nor were formation * * * prob- to show facts relied on inference such an set forth from accepted necessarily He ex able cause.’ rel. United States could be drawn. question’ the ‘sus- F.Supp. informant’s Follette, ‘without v. Schnitzler ” picion,’ rel. or ‘mere conclusion.’ ex ‘belief’ (S.D.N.Y.1967); See State Id., 113-114, at Tahash, 378 U.S. at Minn. Duhn v. 1513.4 N.W.2d (2) (a) whether (b) Court, Failed to indicate laying down same per- spoke magistrate on the basis the need inform- for the be informant (b) knowledge, to outline underlying sonal circum- ed some of upon underlying circumstances supporting the con- stances informant’s based clusions, which the stated: informant unidentified illegal activity was his statement “ * * * magistrate must be in- place premises taking searched. underlying formed of some of cir- supra; (a) Riggan Virginia, In v. informant cumstances from which the Texas, supra, Aguilar v. State concluded the narcotics were Gillespie 1509; and they were, he where and some claimed supra, F.2d at underlying circumstances substan- statements were informant’s which the officer concluded tially the one here.3 same as informant, identity need whose Aguilar, Court, pointing that disclosed, Rugendorf out see v. United indicate whether 887,] the affidavit failed to 376 L.Ed.2d [11 U.S. per- spoke from his own the informant 84 infor- S.Ct. or his was ‘credible’ knowledge, Otherwise, sonal stated: mation ‘the in- ‘reliable.’ ferences facts lead to which present “The vice in the affidavit is complaint’ ‘by will be not drawn great at least as as in and Nathanson magistrate,’ a neutral and detached the ‘mere conclu- Giordenello. Here instead, requires, the Constitution possessed petitioner that sion’ narcotics ‘engaged officer was not even that of the him- affiant competitive enterprise often ferret- self; it an was that of unidentified ing crime,’ out Giordenello v. United only informant. The affidavit here not supra, 78 357 at S.Ct. allegation ‘contains that no affirmative 1509]; 1245 L.Ed.2d at Johnson [2 spoke personal the affiant knowl- with States, supra, v. United at 333 U.S. therein,’ edge of the contained matters 440], or, at 369 S.Ct. L.Ed. at [92 it does not ‘affirma- even contain an allegation’ case, by un- as in tive that affiant’s an in- unidentified Aguilar Texas, majority opinion urges 3. the in- v. State of 4. The that 1509, 12 that L.Ed.2d formant’s statement the affiant (1964), part Spinelli “operating and affidavit relevant handbook accepting disseminating wagers wa- read: and gering infor- “Affiants received the tele- reliable information means of person phones (numbered) mation from a credible be- and do WYdown 4-0029 heroin, marijuana, 4-0136,” lieve that barbiturates WYdown a statement para- narcotic a conclusion. believe narcotics fact kept phernalia being in the at the above a statement similar that are Supreme premises purpose Aguilar for which the described affidavit contrary provisions to the referred to as a conclusion. sale and use Court the law.” being 114-115, concealed Id., property, name- certain formant.” distillation, ly apparatus mash fit for S.Ct. at purpose of distillation for Ventresea, supra, In United States paid held in which are nontax alcohol underly- that found where Court of Title violation U.S.C. Sec. adequately ing circumstances had been (8), (a), (1) (6), (7), (12): forth, stated affidavit set tending informants, to es- Revenue “And that the facts unidentified grounds fermenting foregoing Agents, for issu- mash tablish the had smelled August as fol- premises ance of a are on Search Warrant outside the searched sugar being 30th; bags of lows: 18th and saw 28th, July premises anonymously on given delivered “1. Information August 16th; 2nd, and observed 7th and the aforementioned Affiant being from the prem- tin to and being cans taken are held said materials August 16th, 11th, premises 24th and ises. 28th. The Court cautioned: strong odor “2. detection of The premises say mash outside probable “This is not (Emphasis Affiant.” Id. at n. 1. cause can be made out affidavits added.) conclusory, stating purely are

which only be- the affiant’s or an informer’s The there the affidavit Court held probable without lief that cause exists was not sufficient establish detailing ‘underlying cir- an cause because it did not contain aver- upon cumstances’ that belief re- ment the time the affiant as to when Aguilar Texas, based. anonymous See v. State from his ceived information supra. Recital of some of under- informant, the time the affiant when lying circumstances in the affidavit It stated detected order of mash. magistrate per- if the is to essential present tense was the use of the form making his detached function and not Court, after sufficient. merely stamp serve as a rubber cases deal- examination of the a detailed ” * * * police. Id., 380 U.S. at 108- question, stated: with this “ at 746. * * * present sus- tense is Conti, pended air; point See United States v. it has no (2d 1966) (where all, per- speaks, the affiant reference. It after search warrant as follows: App.D.C. 110, ment. See on the issue of ent formant 287 U.S. at Schoeneman v. United ant’s statement was couched in the apartment, fact F.2d 310 illegal this sonally placed on the “ In Rosencranz v. United (3) Failed to indicate * * * tense does not that activities were premises (1st aware became the Sgro or when the informant he has reason to 317 F.2d 173 affidavit bets time, 210-211, read, v. United to the * * * satisfy the affidavit insofar taking place the affiant. when the States, supra, the this is now there leading the as believe defendant). fact material, 115 U.S. require inform for the in the pres gave 138; that case that in them. magistrate but that of a rubber warrants it is to mation. “ that made on the recent date would be tion must davit date close undated information time conveyed months before the date To which could have * * * ^[******] the make therefore the undated observation difficult when in this case be unsupervised * * * Indeed, on the basis of a double to It is one speak strength of that of to see anonymous give been a as of an inference, thing stamp issuance of search how the to a commonsense speaks adjudged day, such open affidavit to aging remains if the affi- even more expect informant affidavit. informa- the function that week, as officer, infor- valid, door and the for the or summary, do not believe that In we draw

reading forth to facts set statement quite the unidentified informant's an- It is them. inferences any pur- magistrate for can be used expect affiant thing the other pose. only Not did the affidavit fail to build facts and for external to reach informer, reliability the the establish in order upon inference inference showing in- that the there was no his belief basis for a reasonable create personal spoke being former from his own presently com- crime is that a knowledge. underlying cir- None 316-317. mitted.” Id. at supporting informer’s be- cumstances the although case, present the affi- the forth, were set affidavit lief he saw indicates when statement ant’s or he failed to indicate when received traveling to Mis- Spinelli from Illinois Spinelli passed that on the information visiting souri, him he and when observed conducting gambling activities over was apart- complex apartment phones question. in While we do two ment, affiant it is silent as to when agree majority in- that Spinelli from the informant learned reliability established formant’s using Apartment phones F in knowledge the existence of activities, illegal or such activ- when phone apartment search- numbers ity place. as the Rosencranz took Just ed, accepted, the in- if view is even this not infer from stated that it could Court totally unaccepta- is formant’s statement infor- of the affidavit the date stated reasons: ble for passed or near that had been mation we the facts stated Nor do believe that date,5 infer from affidavit we cannot affidavit, the affiant obtained anonymous surveillance, through information was the level rise above suspicion or whether considered with or near to the affiant at transmitted conclusion. without informant’s requested, nor can date warrant “knowledge infer that the informant’s (1) Interstate travel East St. between being phones used were Missouri, Louis, Louis, Illinois, and St. Thus, Spinelli” the inform- was correct. surely so cannot common that Rosencranz, here, establishing pat- statement as ant’s unusual viewed illegality can “suspended tern of from which travel in the air.” case, question pertinent Judge cases in each these indicates that Coffin asks or affiant had the informant either personally in Rosencranz: “ * (cid:127) * illegal suppose activities commis- observed But premises sioner, * * searched. near to be basis affidavit of an * Thus, Jones, stated the informant both af- to infer that were purchased from the he had narcotics were information and observation fiant’s apartment recent, hearing in the defendant’s at a on a motion defendant while occasions, most suppress, in- number of recent that both on a affiant states being day prior the issuance were several one formation and observation precise- fact, would, He warrant. detailed the search There months old. apartment ly warrant, issuing the narcotics where no basis for been kept. yet have been the affidavit would (reversed on other Rosencranz be in no In affiant would accurate and the danger conclusory falsity. grounds), prosecution informant’s the for its ”* * * statement, oper- the defendant was that at 317. Id. by per- still, ating the a was corroborated (a opinion law majority affiant Unit observations Jones v. sonal 6. The cites agent) States, smelled the who 4 enforcement strong 80 ed prem- of the (1960); odor of mash outside Unit Rosencranz v. L.Ed.2d 697 appellant. 1966); States, (1st Cir. ises F.2d ed 310 (a Hodgdon, States, Hodgdon in the informant And F.2d United and v. (a Commissioner) support told affiant (8th of the Court in Cir. hearsay officer) that he had enforcement proposition information law that previous gun a threatened with been informant from the unidentified obtained day sufficiently alone his while in defendant here corroborated had been reading probable with the defendant. A office cause. to establish personally police observed officer had Compare Travis v. United be inferred. per- 1966) (de- nine States, (9th four known addicts and 362 F.2d 477 Cir. entering leaving premises pattern or sons established definite fendant a two-day period, even operandi); searched over and Hernandez v. modus here, though affidavit, 624, (9th stated that United 353 F.2d 1965).7 information affiant had received reliable, informant, known be apart- (2) to the Four observed visits defendant, others were sell- and complex ment and one such visit and base- narcotics in the first floor showing Apartment F, ac- absent holding Court, apartment.8 in The ment tivity bookmaking indicating activi- prob- failed to establish warrant taking apartment, place ties in the were cause, stated: able not, judgment, support add does in our “ * * * finding. probable for a cause in hint there is present informant affidavit Rogers Circuit, in v. Second Ward- any trafficking had seen in narcotics en, (reviewing supra petition for ha- taking Rogers’ apartment. place in It corpus), effectively beas a de- overruled understand, for us to there- is difficult Ap- cision York New Court fore, the basis for the inference drawn peals where facts indicated that a Warden, Rogers large The affidavit in No. v. 7. A number of facts coalesced Cir., 2d June Hernandez part: (1965), probable 211 n. read in cause F.2d 624 to form assigned “1. I am detective for the arrest search of the defend- and Brooklyn Attorney’s bags. Angeles police Off. District ant’s Los had ob- upon recurring pattern “2. have information based I served incidents involving transportation received from confidential information illicit of mari- Large being brought known [sic] an an informant huana. lots were Angeles by auto, and whose [sic] reliable and accurrate Los from Mexico then past Angeles has led to the from Los carried City to New York persons. luggage persons traveling three arrest and conviction of in the Jimmy Rogers flights. The information is on commercial air It was estab- persons apart- (1) found in and other said lished that the couriers Latin were selling drugs Americans, class, (3) (2) ment are narcotic first traveled prem- apartment nonstop flights, (4) fl. & basement traveled 1st on made no Quincy St., Brooklyn, reservations, N. Y. (5) ises advance expensive carried new and deponent (6) luggage of the luggage, carried Observations premises January Thursday, usually which tura,” bore the brand name “Ven- usually luggage and (7) the hours of 8:00 between carried which locks, lug- (8) males and two had combination gage 9:00 P.M. five unknown carried entering exceedingly heavy known were seen which was be- male addicts 1963,. January 11th, weight marihuana, premises; cause paid weight (9) A.M. four unknown and their from 9:00 to 11:00 fares over- charges large male addicts. males and two known cash with bills de- “By Eight the de- reason of the aforesaid nominations. investigated such cases had been years ponent probable preceding believe' has cause to the two drugs paraphernalia appellant’s Airport apprehension. the employees that narcotic commonly drug notify sellers and used ad- asked to person fitting may pattern the aforesaid if a be found at the described dicts premises persons appeared. appellant appeared, upon found' arrested, searched, large bags therein. and a foregoing quantity upon relia- uncovered. “3. Based marihuana was upon my personal commenting seizure, on the ble information and search and Court, knowledge there cause stated: “ * * * wit, property, upon nar- that such The circumstances believe drugs Sergeant paraphernalia common- Butler relied cotic were with- knowledge ly drug addicts and in his search sellers used before may possession initiated, justify in the [sic] and be found were sufficient Jimmy Rogers upon persons believing the the and a reasonable man that premises bags very first floor found therein or at which he did search contained Street, Quincy and basement of 191 marihuana.” Brooklyn, N. Y.” 900 ambiguity inquries the that Appellate to resolve and the New the Division ”* * * Id. 220. Appeals the existed. at that inform- York Court seen, the spoke he had of what ant must search issuance warrant could [in affidavit] ‘deficiencies specific than be based on more evidence * * * reliance not be cured provided present As- instance. complaint upon presumption that earlier, v. Ven- stated in United States knowledge personal on the made tresca, government agents supra, smelled Id. 218 of the [informant]” fermenting in the the odor of mash 381 F.2d. dwelling, vicinity suspected ob- and op- suggesting the served other activities ****** Sigler, 353 eration still. In Miller v. of a Rogers apparent it that lived is “Since 1965), (8th F.2d 426-427 Cir. building, ‘apartment’ ob- in an marihuana affiant smelled the odor of vague very scure, least and at num- premises on a outside the searched actually equivocal ob- whether Gowski In United ber occasions. Biondo v. served the males and known unknown (8th 1965), 348 F.2d 272-273 Cir. Rogers’ ‘apartment,’ entering addicts carrying rac- the defendant was observed merely he them enter- or whether saw ” ing apartment. In United forms into * * * ing ‘premises,’ Id. at Pinkerman, 990 States F.2d v. 374 219. (4th 1967), the affiant saw barrels Cir. * * * * * * premises. and smelled mash outside the course, argued, “It can be that when Ramirez, In F.2d United v. 279 States Gowski stated that he had observed per- (2d 1960), the affiant 712-715 Cir. ‘premises,’ really talking he was about sonally quantities powder white saw ‘apartment.’ recognize apartment he be heroin in the believed to hastily are often drawn and affidavits days the war- be searched two before expect that we cannot officer Ru- rant In United v. was issued. States to draft an the skill affidavit with and gendorf, supra, a reliable informant told * * * precision lawyer. of a Never- alleged furs, to have the affiant he saw theless, simple fact remains stolen, been defendant’s basement us,

from the neither days affidavit before a few before search.9 magistrate we nor the who issued the (3) telephones were fact reasonably warrant could certain be apartment not, located does in the vested observed, what it was that the officers age, day in this absence nothing there to indicate that phones- specific some evidence of how magistrate attempted presence make were of unusual used or Jordan, engaged In F.2d 107 United States v. 349 eral activities others handbook (6th 1965), observed entering apartment Cir. officers seen alone jugs and smelled the odor the transfer of In States with the defendant. United premises. emanating 1962), Whiting, (4th of mash from the v. F.2d 311 191 Cir. Freeman, gambler In F.2d States v. 358 mak United was observed a convicted (2d 1966), the heroin was seen sus contact with defendant under premises picious within the searched In circumstances the affiant. Grosso, July 12, Suarez, Cir., In informant. v. United States v. United States 2d (3rd F.2d 154 known F.2d the affidavit related operators provided loere observed de- numbers informant had the reliable envelopes positing paper bags occasions brown least information on at cemetery. Irby years past in a car near a In v. over the one and one-half U.S.App.D.C. 246, apartment had observed heroin United (1963), the affiant observed F.2d 251 Ra v. be searched. See United States government’s special employee taking mos, July Cir., 12, 1967, F.2d 2d money Cir., July Perry, from known and the em- addicts v. United States 2d ployee 12, 1967, turned over narcotics obtained the affida where money prior comparable the issuance of to- with the vit contained Gorman, supra. Suarez, warrant. United States States v. F.Supp. (E.D.Mich.1962), sev-

901 agents;10 equipment, probable here, cause for the informant constitute narcotics the issuance of a search Unit- warrant. was unidentified. Gebell, (E.D. F.Supp. 11 ed 209 States v. giv- (2) Draper, In the informant had Mich.1962). ex rel. See United States en to the federal reliable information DeNegris 199, Menser, v. 360 F.2d agents a on numerous occasions over 1966); (2d Nichol- United v. States period, six-month the information son, (6th com- always had been found be reliable. pare Gorman, 208 F. United States v. allegation Here, reli- we a mere Supp. (E.D.Mich.1962), 747-748 where ability. long telephone numerous calls distance (3) Draper, In the informant told the consum- with known bookmakers were officer, arresting September 3rd, phones that question; mated over the Bion- up States, supra, the defendant taken residence had v. 348 F.2d at do United city, peddling 274, narcotics telephonic equipment and was where unusual city. use; and, Conti, Four several residents of inwas v. United States days later, supra, told the arrest- placed informant where the affiant bets gone making apartment that had phone officer defendant a call Chicago before, day he and that searched. heroin; bring would three ounces of back (4) fact morning he and that would return on known to and other law en- affiant September 8th He or 9th. described agents bookmaker, forcement as a in exact detail the defendant’s dress and would, bookmakers, an associate of if baggage. supported by evidence, some credible might magistrate a factor which a con- Here, gave the informant no informa- sider, States, supra, Jones v. United Spinelli tion the tele- as when had used here, U.S. at we illegal phones purposes, they for or when supporting have no such evidence. future, would be so used in the nor does majority heavily McCray relies affidavit indicate when inform- Illinois, supra; Draper v. Agent State Spinelli ant told the F.B.I. “is v. United 358 U.S. 79 S.Ct. using phones gambling.” for (1959), support L.Ed.2d 327 (4) Finally, supplied the information opinion. its these We believe that cases Draper pre- the informant is so support finding do not obviously it cise that came from one here; rather, they cause feel we intimately familiar with defendant’s suggest contrary result. activities; here, while outset, point Draper At the out regarding phone from the informant Aguilar followed v. State Apartment numbers F is of such Texas, Ohio, supra; Beck v. State general nature it could have been 379 U.S. 13 L.Ed.2d obtained from one of a number of (1964); Ventresca, United States v. including sources, book, phone or an- supra; recently by McCray and most v. other unidentified informant. Illinois, Thus, supra. Draper must be light subsequent read in these cases. years Draper, Five after Justice Stew- There are several factors which distin art, speaking for the in Beck Court guish Draper present from the case: Ohio, supra, State where refused (1) Draper, probable cause, the informant find on the focused special employee Draper named essential federal elements Goldberg, speaking plainly investigation Justice common are a re- Ventresca, 102, 111, applied States v. liable basis for warrant ” * * * (1965), L.Ed.2d one of their number. stated: “ * * * of- Observations of fellow engaged ficers of in a the Government probable McCray, find cause Beck was followed where the to caused Court Supreme probable the declared: also found the Justice Stewart Court for arrest. “ doing so, * * * In it the un- cause. noted that the record in that case But given informa- identified informant had employee special that a named showed police forty prior tion the at to least agents numer- had on who narcotics occasions; the information had resulted given informa- reliable ous occasions convictions; the inform- a number of arresting that officer tion told the had personally the defendant ant observed defendant, he mi- described the whom immediately selling inform- narcotics and up nutely, at residence had taken proceeded police, ed the forthwith who selling nar- stated address and the seen the defend- to where affiant had The in- to addicts Denver. cotics defendant, ant, observing the and after the officer had told further former arrested him. going Chica- that the defendant was Draper, McCray (all go be re- Beck and would and narcotics When to obtain cases) to- turning two trains non-warrant considered on one of are to Denver gether, they Supreme Chicago, fact the took indicate that event ” * * * Id., probable the place. where at will find cause Court reliable, the informant is shown to be 227. at S.Ct. precise by him is information furnished arresting Beck, officer had In the place, as either based time and and is police photo suspect, the what knew knowledge personal on the informant’s like, peti- suspect the that looked knew specific or to indicate that is so in connection with tioner had a record intimately familiar informant clearing schemes schemes house police operations, defendant’s and the chance, re- had received information receiving promptly upon acted garding suspect’s from an activities tip. informant’s reversing the con- source. undisclosed showing Here, viction, no the un- there is said: Court “ * * * re- identified informant had submitted testified But officer police liable information nothing indicate that that would past. by him The information furnished peti- informer had said nature, conclusory not does time at that tioner could found appear personal it was based on place. Draper Cf. v. United knowledge. And, finally, the affidavit 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327. S.Ct. acted does not indicate whether not And the record does show promptly receipt ‘stop’ petitioner before officers saw from him. they saw, him, they or that arrested heard, perceived smelled or otherwise CONCLUSION anything give ground else to them petitioner feelings colleagues belief that had acted share the of our unlawfully.” acting magis- was then Id. at presented affidavits added.) (Emphasis trate, at 227. cause for establish ****** warrant, must be issuance a search “ * * * in a viewed commonsense matter. All that the trial court was told in this the officers case was that here, at When read affidavit petitioner knew looked like what questions occur three least commonsense previous that he had a record knew ought questions the same to us. We feel of arrests or convictions for violations magistrate. to have occurred to the Beyond clearing house law. (1) How did affiant know that that, arresting officer who testified informant was reliable? (he said no more than that someone did who) something (2) say know that had told him How did affiant (he using telephones what) peti- Spinelli say did about 96-97, Apartment operations F ? tioner.” Id. at conduct his (3) the informant obtain When did information; trans- did he and when it to the affiant?

mit being are believe that we We cannot insisting

hyperteehnical by these questions be answered.

basic important use of search

It is that the encouraged. equally It

warrants be magistrates satisfy

important them- for there is reasonable cause selves that taking

believing illegal activity is

place premises to searched on the issuing search warrants.

before majority concur standing; as it is our

defendant had exist cause did not

belief that

for the issuance search warrant dispositive determination is

and as this case, opinion express no appellant. issues raised

CARLSON, INC., Appellant,

COMMERCIAL DISCOUNT CORPORA- Joseph McNeany, TION and R. Trus- Bankruptcy, Appellees. tee in

No. 9139. Appeals

United States Court Tenth Circuit.

Aug. Womack,Albuquerque,

James E. N. M. (Poole Ortega, & Al- Poole and Arthur G. M., brief), ap- buquerque, for N. on the pellant. Dewey, Albuquerque,

Allen C. N. M. (Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Albuquerque, Sisk, Harris and Daniel A. M., brief), appellee, N. on the for Com- Corporation. mercial Discount M., Threet, Albuquerque, Martin E. N. appellee, Joseph McNeany, R. Trustee Bankruptcy. MURRAH, Judge, Before Chief Judges. SETH, JONES* and Circuit * Judge Circuit, Designation. of the Fifth Senior

Case Details

Case Name: William Spinelli v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 12, 1967

Citation: 382 F.2d 871

Docket Number: 18389

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.