415 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1969), 26491, Haynes v. United States

Docket Nº:26491.
Citation:415 F.2d 347
Party Name:James A. HAYNES, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Case Date:August 14, 1969
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Page 347

415 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1969)

James A. HAYNES, Appellant,


UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 26491.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 14, 1969

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1969.

Page 348

James A. Haynes pro se.

Charles R. Haworth (court-appointed) Coke & Coke, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

Anthony J. P. Farris U.S. Atty.,

James R. Gouch, Ronald J. Blask, Malcolm R. Dimmitt, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for appellee.

Before AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District judge.


November 22, 1967, appellant James A. Haynes and Julius J. Gulledge were indicted on a conspiracy count and a substantive count of unlawfully and knowingly transporting in interstate commerce stolen goods (whiskey) valued in excess of $5,000. At the same time, Taylor Lee Mosley and Carl Hathcock were indicted on a conspiracy count and two substantive counts of the same crime. Following a jury trial March 18, 1968, 1 Gulledge was convicted on both the conspiracy count and the substantive count; Mosley was convicted on the conspiracy count, acquitted on one of the substantive counts, and convicted on the other substantive count; and appellant was convicted on the conspiracy count and acquitted on the substantive count. 2 After receiving a five-year sentence, he effected this appeal.

His primary contention is that there was no sufficient probable cause for the warrantless search of a trailer in which the contraband was found. We hold that probable cause did indeed exist for the search of the trailer and for the precedent arrests of Gulledge and Mosley, appellant not being present at the time. 3 The basis for the arrests and search was a call to the local sheriff, who made the arrests, from Barry J. Smith, a person to whom appellant and the other co-defendant had attempted to sell the contraband. Smith was shown to be a substantial business man, well known to the sheriff, and had given reliable tips to him in the past. Thus, sufficient evidence of the reliability of the informant, Smith, although not as fully developed as might have been possible, had the issue been appropriately raised before or during trial, is in the record, and the contents of the tip warranted a genuine belief by the sheriff that armed persons, illegally in possession of liquor, were on Smith's premises and likely to move quickly...

To continue reading