Holbrook v. United States, 10186.

Decision Date21 January 1969
Docket NumberNo. 10186.,10186.
Citation406 F.2d 44
PartiesGlenn John HOLBROOK, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Clayton W. Bell, Boulder, Colo., for appellant.

Lawrence M. Henry, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for appellee.

Before LEWIS, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.

HILL, Circuit Judge.

The appellant, Glenn John Holbrook, was tried to a jury and convicted of the unlawful transportation of a stolen motor vehicle from Wilson, Kansas, to Denver, Colorado, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. On this direct appeal, appellant contends that an automobile ignition key obtained from his person at the time of his arrest was obtained by means of an unlawful search and seizure and should not have been admitted into evidence. He further contends that a confession that was obtained during his subsequent incarceration in the Denver city jail was involuntarily given and likewise inadmissible.

The events leading up to the arrest and search of the appellant began late on the night of September 20, 1967. At that time, two Denver police officers were walking a patrol assignment on Larimer Street in that city when they were approached by a man who identified himself as being one James Gibson. He informed the officers that while hitch-hiking to Denver he had secured a ride in a grey-blue 1963 Chevrolet station wagon whose driver had boasted of having eluded the police after a high-speed chase somewhere in Kansas. The officers relayed this information to other police officers and then resumed their normal duties. Approximately one hour later, the officers observed the vehicle in question parked in front of a local tavern. Upon approaching the automobile, they were again met by James Gibson who told them that was the car he had referred to previously. After further stating that the driver was inside the tavern, Gibson proceeded to point through a tavern window and identify the appellant. The officers then accosted the appellant, placed him under arrest, and upon searching him discovered the ignition key that was later admitted into evidence.

The officers escorted the appellant to Denver police headquarters where he was there confined in the city jail. The following morning, after having various discussions with local authorities, the appellant conferred with two F.B.I. agents who had been notified that the appellant was being held for investigation of automobile theft.1 The agents obtained a signed waiver of rights before interrogating the appellant and obtaining his confession. The confession indicated that in July, 1967, the appellant and a companion had entered a private garage in Wilson, Kansas, where the companion "hot-wired" the station wagon before the two men "shared the driving" of the vehicle from Kansas to Colorado. The confession did not indicate what had transpired during the two months between the time of the theft and appellant's arrest.

The search of the appellant and the seizure of the automobile ignition key were undertaken without the benefit of a search warrant. The constitutional validity of the search and seizure must therefore rest upon the propriety of the underlying arrest. Whether the arrest was lawful depends in turn upon the existence of the requisite probable cause necessary to validate an arrest. To constitute probable cause for the arrest it must be demonstrated that at the time the officer made the arrest the facts and circumstances within his knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, were such as to warrant a prudent man in believing that the accused had committed or was committing an offense.2

An examination of the facts presented in the case at bar reveals that the arresting officers did not possess reasonably trustworthy information that would justify the arrest of the appellant. The officers acted solely on the basis of the information supplied by James Gibson, an individual whose true identity and reliability were completely unknown. At the time of the arrest the officers had absolutely no competent reason to suspect...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • United States v. Smaldone
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • October 12, 1973
    ...that the appellant had committed, or was committing, an offense. United States v. Richerson, 10 Cir., 461 F.2d 935 ; Holbrook v. United States, 10 Cir., 406 F.2d 44. Appellant Garceo's arrest failed to meet that Garceo was arrested after appearing at the door of a residence, which was not h......
  • People v. Feltch, 25104
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1971
    ...it cannot be contended that the uncorroborated accusation by the unidentified informant provided probable cause. Holbrook v. United States, 406 F.2d 44 (10th Cir. 1969). Nor was anything done after the officers arrived on the scene that could justify this arrest which resulted from the vagu......
  • People v. Dogans
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • September 28, 1970
    ...(Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.880).19 See People v. Hogan (1969), 71 Cal.2d 888, 80 Cal.Rptr. 28, 457 P.2d 868; contrast Holbrook v. United States (C.A. 10, 1969), 406 F.2d 44; and People v. Abbott (1970), 3 Cal.App.3d 966, 84 Cal.Rptr. 40, concerning 'citizen' and victim informers.20 Cf. Dyke v......
  • United States v. Pearce
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • April 2, 1973
    ...for probable cause was missing. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 96-97, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); Holbrook v. United States, 406 F.2d 44, 46 (10th Cir. 1969). See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). Further, the anonymous caller gave no underlying ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT