Ferganchick v. United States, 20328.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Citation | 374 F.2d 559 |
| Docket Number | No. 20328.,20328. |
| Parties | William R. FERGANCHICK and Robert C. Ferganchick, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1967 |
374 F.2d 559 (1967)
William R. FERGANCHICK and Robert C. Ferganchick, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 20328.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
March 20, 1967.
Certiorari Denied June 5, 1967.
William Dougherty, Santa Ana, Cal., for appellants.
John K. Van de Kamp, U.S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Crim. Div., Jo Ann I. Dunne, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and COPPLE, District Judge.
Certiorari Denied June 5, 1967. See 87 S.Ct. 2085.
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.
The Ferganchick brothers, William and Robert, stand convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) (d) of an armed robbery of the Pioneer National Bank, Los Angeles, California. They appeal, arguing that their arrest was illegal, thus making it error to admit in evidence the guns that they were carrying when arrested, and that the confession of Robert, given in William's presence, was illegally obtained and should not have been received. We affirm.
Appellants were arrested on February 19, 1964 by officer Reese of the South Pasadena Police at the Santa Anita Race Track. When the arrest was made, Reese had considerable information about the brothers Ferganchick. He knew that a felony warrant was outstanding charging them with armed robbery of Beneficial Finance Company in South Pasadena. In January, 1964, he saw a special bulletin issued by the Los Angeles County sheriff's office. It was posted at the South Pasadena Police Department, and Reese carried a copy in his patrol car. The bulletin stated that the Ferganchicks were wanted for twenty-four robberies in the Southern California area. It listed the robberies and described the brothers and their modus operandi. The South Pasadena Police Department had also placed "mug shots" of the brothers in each of its patrol cars. Reese had received them in November, 1963. He also knew that robbery victims had identified the brothers.
Appellants attack the warrant on the ground that the complaint on the basis of which it was issued was insufficient, citing Giordenello v. United States, 1958, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503. At oral argument, government counsel conceded that appellants are probably right as to the complaint. We therefore assume the invalidity of the warrant. We pass, without deciding, the question whether, if Reese believed the warrant valid, he could arrest in reliance upon it. Treating the arrest as one not based upon the warrant, we hold that Reese had probable cause so that the arrest was valid.
Here, the arrest was by a California officer, and California law is to be looked to. Miller v. United States, 1958, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed. 2d 1332. California permits an arrest without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed a felony. Cal. Pen.C. § 836; People v. Coleman, 1965, 235 Cal.App.2d 612, 45 Cal.Rptr. 542. This rule applies where the arrest is made under authority of a defective warrant. See People v. Tillman, 1965, 238 Cal.App. 2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Gockley v. Myers, Misc. No. 2790.
...v. United States, 378 F.2d 346 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 885, 88 S.Ct. 156, 19 L.Ed.2d 183 (1967); Ferganchick v. United States, 374 F.2d 559 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 2085, 18 L.Ed.2d 1337 (1967); Hagans v. United States, 315 F.2d 67 (5th Cir.), cert. denie......
-
People v. Chimel, Cr. 11607
...cause sufficient to support a warrantless arrest. Such an arrest is valid despite an invalid warrant. Ferganchick v. United States, 374 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1967); Bell v. United States, 371 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1967).' (Dearinger v. United States (9th Cir. 1967) 378 F.2d 346, 347, cert. den. 38......
-
Gregoire v. Cal. Highway Patrol, CASE NO. 14CV1749-GPC(DHB)
...arrest in California is similar to the federal standard. See People v. Campa, 36 Cal. 3d 870, 878 (1984); Ferganchick v. United States, 374 F.2d 559, 560 (9th Cir. 1967). Defendant Flores contends he had lawful privilege under California Penal Code sections 836(a) and 847(b). Section 836(a)......
-
United States v. Stevens, CR 74-123.
...Russo v. United States, 391 F.2d 1004 (9th Cir. 1968); Bell v. United States, 371 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1967); Ferganchick v. United States, 374 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1967) cert. denied 387 U.S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 2085, 18 L.Ed.2d 1337 (1967); Dearinger v. United States, 378 F.2d 346 (9th Cir. 1967). I......