U.S. v. Peyko
| Decision Date | 14 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 630,D,630 |
| Citation | 717 F.2d 741 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Timothy PEYKO, Appellee. ocket 82-1319. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
John J. Bergeron, Burlington, Vt. (Kevin G. Bradley, Howard E. VanBenthuysen, Desautels & Bergeron, Inc., Burlington, Vt., of counsel), for appellee.
George J. Terwilliger, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Burlington, Vt. (George W.F. Cook, U.S. Atty. D.Vt., Burlington, Vt., Peter W. Hall, Asst. U.S. Atty., Rutland, Vt., of counsel), for appellant.
Before FRIENDLY, TIMBERS and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Timothy Peyko was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 844(a) (1976). The events that prompted the charge took place in December, 1981. On December 18, an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") working in Vermont received an anonymous tip that a Timothy Peyko was receiving illegal drugs on a weekly basis via the Federal Express delivery service and sending payments for the drugs to Blacksburg, Virginia, via the same service. The informant described both Peyko and his automobile and predicted that a package would arrive for Peyko from Blacksburg at a local Federal Express office on the following day. The informant did not reveal the source of his information.
The DEA agent determined that a Timothy Peyko matching the informant's description was attending the University of Vermont. He also learned that within the previous month Peyko had sent three packages from Burlington to Blacksburg via Federal Express, that Peyko had recently received two packages via Federal Express, and that another such package would be arriving from Blacksburg at the Federal Express office in Williston, Vermont, on December 19. Driving an automobile that matched the description given by the informant, Peyko claimed the package on that day, and, as he was returning to his car, was stopped by DEA agents. Peyko agreed to speak to them about the package, eventually informing the agents that it contained two envelopes, only one of which belonged to him. When Peyko refused to open one of the envelopes in their presence, the agents seized the entire package. It was opened two days later after the DEA agents secured a search warrant from the local United States Magistrate. The package was found to contain 25.4 grams of cocaine, as well as a note addressed to Peyko.
On June 7, 1982, Peyko moved to suppress the contents of the Federal Express package on the ground that the anonymous tip which led to the investigation of his activities did not provide probable cause for the seizure and subsequent search of the package. The District Court granted Peyko's motion. It held that, under the test announced in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and elaborated in Spinelli v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eisenhauer v. State
...law. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion to suppress on this basis. Illinois v. Gates, supra. 7 ; United States v. Peyko, 717 F.2d 741 (2nd Cir.1983). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for action not inconsistent with t......
-
U.S. v. Laws
...United States, supra note 6); see also United States v. Lucas, 250 U.S.App.D.C. 264, 267, 778 F.2d 885, 888 (1985); United States v. Peyko, 717 F.2d 741, 742 (2d Cir.1983); United States v. Porter, 738 F.2d 622, 626 & n. 3 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 983, 105 S.Ct. 389, 83 L.Ed.2d 32......
-
Starkey v. State
...involved in criminal activity. See also Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 104 S.Ct. 2085, 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984); United States v. Peyko, 717 F.2d 741, 743 (2d Cir.1983). Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow him or her to make an independent assessment of p......
-
United States v. Wilson
...920, 66 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981). 7 Illinois v. Gates, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); see also United States v. Peyko, 717 F.2d 741 (2d Cir.1983) (per curiam). 8 Pub.L. No. 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025 (1980). 9 CIPA §§ 5(a), (b). 10 United States v. Pope, 189 F.Supp. 12, 21 (S.D.N......