596 F.2d 511 (1st Cir. 1979), 78-1434, United States v. Migely

Docket Nº:78-1434.
Citation:596 F.2d 511
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William Godfrey MIGELY, Defendant, Appellant.
Case Date:April 18, 1979
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Page 511

596 F.2d 511 (1st Cir. 1979)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


William Godfrey MIGELY, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 78-1434.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

April 18, 1979

Argued March 7, 1979.

Page 512

Nancy Gertner, Boston, Mass., with whom Silverglate, Gertner & Shapiro, Boston, Mass., Marcus S. Topel and Paul D. Wolf, San Francisco, Cal., were on brief, for defendant, appellant.

Robert B. Collings, First Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., Boston, Mass., with whom Edward F. Harrington, U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellee.

Before ALDRICH and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges, and GIGNOUX, District Judge. [*]

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge.

On February 13, 1978, William Godfrey Migely applied in Boston for a passport in the name of David Joseph Natta, a deceased infant, presenting a birth certificate and an Oregon driver's license. He was arrested when he returned and signed for the passport the following day, and was convicted of making a false statement in a passport application, 18 U.S.C. § 1542, after a court trial on stipulated facts.

Prior to trial, Migely unsuccessfully moved to suppress all evidence relating to use of the name David Joseph Natta. This motion was accompanied by claims that Migely's arrest had resulted from an illegal, warrantless search of his residence or mail, or else from the illegal inspection of the cover of a letter i. e., a "mail cover" 1 addressed to his home in Portland, Oregon. In connection with his motion to suppress Migely filed a motion for discovery of the occurrence of any searches made by means of mail covers or otherwise of mail sent to his home in Portland. The discovery request was granted, but the government's response, that there had been

Page 513

"no interception of mail or examination of letters placed in the mail either to or from residences owned or occupied by the defendant in connection with the investigation of the charge contained in the instant indictment,"

was ruled adequate by a federal magistrate. Migely still insisted that an illegal mail cover had occurred, however. He made a motion for further discovery, asking for information concerning any mail covers of mail delivered to his home in Portland, including covers instituted in connection with two West Coast passport fraud and drug violation cases involving him and one Dennis Kelly. This motion was denied at a motions hearing. During the hearing, the Assistant United States Attorney represented that no mail covers had occurred, and that this answer included "all of the investigation that was conducted, and whatever was done by the Government in connection with this Kelly case that has gone on on the West Coast." The prosecutor said that he had discussed the...

To continue reading