De Bruhl v. United States, 11389.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 11389.,11389. |
| Citation | 91 US App. DC 125,199 F.2d 175 |
| Parties | DE BRUHL v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
George E. C. Hayes, Washington, D. C., with whom James A. Cobb and Julian R. Dugas, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., and John C. Conliff, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before CLARK, WILBUR K. MILLER, and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied October 27, 1952. See 73 S.Ct. 111.
Appellant was convicted after indictment and trial for violation of the statutes which prohibit the carrying on of a lottery and the possession of tickets, certificates, etc., designed for the purpose of conducting a lottery.1 Upon appeal he says that his arrest, which was made without a warrant, was illegal because it was without probable cause, and that therefore the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence which was taken from him upon his arrest.
The testimony showed that a detective in the Public Buildings Service had received a complaint "that a suspicious person was hanging around the corridor of the Munitions Building collecting a crowd of veterans employees around him." This detective observed the appellant on three different days standing in the corridor of the Munitions Building between the hours of 12:00 noon and 2:00 p. m. On two of these days he observed a number of people meet the appellant and hand him pieces of paper and money, and on the third day he saw appellant go into the building, remain there for a time, and then depart. On a fourth day the detective observed the appellant park his automobile in front of the Munitions Building and go into the building at about the same time of day. This detective reported his observations to the Metropolitan Police. Officers from that force observed appellant park his car, go into the Munitions Building, and after a period of time return to his car. One of the officers walked to the car and, according to his testimony, asked appellant what he had been doing in the Munitions Building. Appellant said, "You know what I was doing in there." The officer then asked, according to his testimony, "Where is the work?", and appellant thereupon handed him eleven envelopes containing money and numbers slips. In an affidavit attached to the motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. United States
...L.Ed.2d 497 (1963); Stephens v. United States, 106 U.S.App. D.C. 249, 250-251, 271 F.2d 832, 833-834 (1959); DeBruhl v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 126, 199 F.2d 175, 176, cert. denied 344 U.S. 868, 73 S.Ct. 111, 97 L.Ed. 673 (1952); Mills v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 196 ......
-
U.S. v. Davis
...v. Loundmannz, 153 U.S.App.D.C. 301, 303-4, 472 F.2d 1376, 1378-79 (1972); United States v. Davis, supra; DeBruhl v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 126, 199 F.2d 175, 176, cert. denied, 344 U.S. 868, 73 S.Ct. 111, 97 L.Ed. 673 (1952).5 Section 4205(b) provides as follows:(b) Upon enter......
-
Greer v. State
...for a determination of the existence of probable cause. Mills v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 196 F.2d 600; De Bruhl v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 199 F.2d 175. Although information received from anonymous informants is not alone sufficient to constitute probable cause for a......
-
Green v. District of Columbia
...Boliski, 156 Wis. 78, 145 N.W. 368, 50 L.R.A., N.S., 825. 4. See also McQuaid v. United States, D.C. Cir., 198 F.2d 987; DeBruhl v. United States, D.C.Cir., 199 F.2d 175. 5. Two other instruments were found under the seat of defendant's automobile after he reached the police station. We thi......