U.S. v. Rich
| Decision Date | 18 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1034,86-1034 |
| Citation | 795 F.2d 680 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Kenneth RICH, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Thomas F. Flynn, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Larry D. Hale, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before ROSS, McMILLIAN and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Robert K. Rich appeals his conviction of two counts of possession of methaqualone, two counts of possession of cocaine, and one count of possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 844; one count of possession of diazepam (valium) with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1); and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Appendix Sec. 1202(a)(1). He was sentenced to one year imprisonment on each count to be served consecutively with a one year special parole term to follow. He appeals alleging that the district court 1 erred 1) in denying his motion to suppress the evidence because his arrest was not based on probable cause; and 2) in imposing consecutive sentences for his conviction for two counts of possession of the same drug. We affirm.
The St. Louis Police Department had been conducting a surveillance of Rich's home in connection with suspected drug activity occurring within the home. A confidential source revealed to a police officer that he had seen quantities of various drugs and firearms in Rich's home and in two specific rooms of a local hotel, and that he had discussed drug matters with Rich. The informant observed all of the above within 96 hours prior to Rich's arrest. The police began a surveillance of the motel and observed Rich, and another man known to them to be involved in drugs, leaving a motel room to get a suitcase out of a car registered to Rich. The men returned the suitcase to the car and transferred several cellophane wrapped items from a briefcase to the suitcase. Rich then drove to the St. Louis airport where he parked and went to the outdoor baggage check-in area with the suitcase and briefcase mentioned above. At this point officers approached Rich, informed him that he was under arrest and seized the suitcase and the briefcase. A search of Rich revealed methaqualone and cocaine. The police subsequently obtained search warrants for Rich's luggage, home, and the motel rooms which Rich had been seen entering. Methaqualone and cocaine were found in the luggage, and methaqualone, cocaine, diazepam, marijuana, and a gun were found in his home. The items found on Rich's person and in his luggage became the basis for the first two counts of the indictment, and the items seized from his home became the basis for the other five counts.
Rich first contends that the officers lacked probable cause for making his arrest. We find this contention to be without merit. Probable cause is established if "at the moment [of the arrest] the facts and circumstances within [the officers] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense." Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). This standard was clearly met. The suspicious events the officers witnessed, combined with the information supplied by their informant, would lead a prudent man to believe that an offense was being committed. Moreover, the court does not merely look to the actual knowledge of the arresting officer, but to the combined knowledge of all of the officers involved. United States v. Rose, 541 F.2d 750, 756 (8th Cir.1976). Consequently, it is clear that the officers had probable cause to arrest Rich.
Rich's contention that the subsequent search warrants were invalid is also unfounded. If a common sense decision based on all surrounding circumstances demonstrates a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a certain place, then issuance of a search warrant is proper. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duffy v. State
...United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), and the federal rules will be left for the future. See United States v. Rich, 795 F.2d 680 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Bass, 794 F.2d 1305 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214, 1245 (11th Cir.1986); Br......
-
State v. Rahman
...the conclusion that "different proof was required as to each of the three counts." Id. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit, in United States v. Rich, 795 F.2d 680 (8th Cir.1986), upheld separate convictions for possession of drugs in the defendant's home, on his person, and in his luggage. The def......
-
U.S. v. Conner
...upon the information within the knowledge of the officer on the scene if there is some degree of communication, see United States v. Rich, 795 F.2d 680, 682 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Briley, 726 F.2d 1301, 1305 (8th Cir.1984), [an arresting officer's] lack of first-hand knowledge is ......
-
U.S. v. Horne
...upon the information within the knowledge of the officer on the scene if there is some degree of communication, see United States v. Rich, 795 F.2d 680-82 (8th Cir.1986); United States v. Briley, 726 F.2d 1301, 1305 (8th Cir.1984), Officer Trebil's lack of first-hand knowledge is Under cros......