308 F.2d 326 (D.C. Cir. 1962), 16821, Williams v. United States

Docket Nº:16821.
Citation:308 F.2d 326
Party Name:Samuel J. D. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Case Date:August 02, 1962
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 326

308 F.2d 326 (D.C. Cir. 1962)

Samuel J. D. WILLIAMS, Appellant,


UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 16821.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Aug. 2, 1962

Argued June 27, 1962.

Petition for Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1962.

Mr. John T. Rigby, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Paul A. Porter, Washington, D.C. (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Judah Best, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U.S. Atty., Nathan J. Paulson and Joseph A. Lowther, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and BURGER and WRIGHT, Circuit judges.

BURGER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant challenges his arrest and the admissibility of evidence flowing therefrom on the ground the arresting officer lacked personal knowledge which gave probable cause for arrest, even though another officer assigned to the investigation admittedly possessed such knowledge. The questions respecting the suppression of a pistol as evidence against appellant and testimony as to pre-trial identification by the complaining witness are resolved if probable cause existed.

On March 9, 1961, appellant was arrested by Sgt. Sadler of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department after complaint of a housebreaking and assault had been received. At the time of arrest Sadler knew that this housebreaking and assault had been committed, and it was also known to him that

Page 327

Sgt. Talbot of the Metropolitan Police Department wanted appellant for this crime. Earlier on the day of the arrest Sgt. Talbot had learned from the complaining witness, Mr. Hurt, that two men had broken into his house, shot and robbed him and he recognized the two men as men who had been employed by a contractor named Frazier to perform repair work on Hurt's home a few weeks earlier. Hurt described appellant in detail. On the basis of this information, Sgt. Talbot located Frazier, who said the description fitted appellant. He and Talbot then cruised the area in a police car in an effort to find the appellant. Talbot was called away on another case but Frazier continued the search under directions to call the police if he found the appellant. Shortly thereafter Frazier contacted Sgt. Sadler and told him where appellant could be found and guided Sadler to the house where appellant was...

To continue reading