Louie v. United States, No. 22963.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 426 F.2d 1398 |
| Parties | George LOUIE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 22963. |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1970 |
426 F.2d 1398 (1970)
George LOUIE, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 22963.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 19, 1970.
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1970.
Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., Sidney M. Glazer, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before BROWNING and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and *THOMPSON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Fayetta Hartin, Judie Maxwell, and appellant George S. Louie were charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2314,1 and, together with Alice Varnum (unindicted), with conspiracy to violate that section. Appellant was convicted of two substantive violations and the conspiracy charge.
The government's evidence established the following. Judie Maxwell stole two blank checks from an employee of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith; one Michael Cooke forged the checks; and appellant cashed them. Subsequently appellant had checks printed duplicating those of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith. Appellant and Fayetta Hartin filled in the checks and recruited Alice Varnum to pass them. A store sales clerk detected the forgery and called police. The arresting officer obtained a description from the clerk, and located Alice Varnum in an adjacent parking lot. When he approached her she immediately identified herself as the person he was seeking, and stated that there were two others involved, that the officer had "better get" them, that they were at a service station "on up the street." She got into the squad car, directed the officer to a nearby service station, and pointed out appellant and Fayetta Hartin as they were driving away. The officer pursued, stopped, and arrested them.
The next day FBI agents, acting pursuant to a search warrant issued on the basis of information supplied by Alice Varnum, seized a check protector, a typewriter, and 140 fake Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith checks from an apartment at 1621½ "W" Street, Sacramento, California. Appellant's fingerprints were found on the check protector and one of the blank checks.
Appellant contends that his arrest was illegal, and that therefore the fingerprints subsequently taken from him should not have been admitted into evidence. See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969).
Appellant does not challenge the fact that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe Alice Varnum had committed a felony. The only question is whether a prudent man would have relied upon her identification of her accomplices. We think he would. Alice Varnum's immediate and spontaneous admission of her own guilt lent credence to her statement regarding her two cohorts; and the reliability of her accusation was further supported by the prompt location of the two alleged co-participants where she said they would be. See Wooten v. United States, 380 F.2d 230, 232 (5th Cir. 1967); Gilbert v. United States, 366 F.2d 923, 931 (9th Cir. 1966); Bernard v. United States, 360 F.2d 300, 304 (5th Cir. 1966); United States ex rel. Gates v. Pate, 355 F.2d 879, 881-882 (7th Cir. 1966).
Pulido v. United States, 425 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1970), is distinguishable. There the informing participant was a narcotics offender — a notoriously unreliable source, see Gilbert v. United States, supra, 366 F.2d at 931, n. 9 — and the circumstances surrounding the identification of the alleged co-participants lent less support to its reliability.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the affidavit supporting the search warrant. The affidavit, made by an FBI agent, is reproduced in the margin.2 The question is whether it sets forth circumstances from which the magistrate could have made an independent judgment (1) as to Alice Varnum's reliability, and (2) as to the validity of Alice Varnum's conclusion that the items to be seized were where she said they were. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). The second requirement is satisfied by the recitations in the affidavit that Alice Varnum personally observed Louie and another man take the typewriter and check protector from a car to the apartment at 1621½ "W" Street, Sacramento. The first requirement is satisfied by the following recited circumstances indicating Alice Varnum's reliability: her immediate admission of personal guilt and her cooperation in locating and identifying her collaborators; the absence of a motive for falsification; the likelihood that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIntire v. Ford Motor Co., No. C-3-00-213.
...litigation exceeds $75,000, either for each named Plaintiff or for all named Plaintiffs when considered in the aggregate. See Goldsmith, 426 F.2d at 1398 ("[S]ince we have concluded above that the right to be protected here is incapable of valuation in monetary terms, appellant has failed t......
-
State v. Jackson
...United States v. Viggiano, 433 F.2d 716, 717 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 938, 91 S.Ct. 934, 28 L.Ed.2d 219; Louie v. United States, 426 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir.); Wooten v. United States, 380 F.2d [162 Conn. 452] 230, 232 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 942, 88 S.Ct. 302, 19 L.Ed.......
-
Gomez v. Wilson, No. 71-1484.
...are incapable of monetary valuation, and thus that no jurisdiction lies under § 1331(a). See Goldsmith v. Sutherland, supra note 49, 426 F.2d at 1398; Giancana v. Johnson, supra note 49, 335 F.2d at 369; Boyd v. Clark, supra note 49, 287 F.Supp. at 564. On the opposite end are courts and ju......
-
Holman v. Board of Education of City of Flint, Civ. A. No. 74-40065.
...plaintiff might recover at law, but rather the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented," supra, 426 F.2d at 1398. It is at least arguable that the extent of the injury to be prevented in the instant case is the monetary loss to each individual plaintif......
-
Gomez v. Wilson, No. 71-1484.
...are incapable of monetary valuation, and thus that no jurisdiction lies under § 1331(a). See Goldsmith v. Sutherland, supra note 49, 426 F.2d at 1398; Giancana v. Johnson, supra note 49, 335 F.2d at 369; Boyd v. Clark, supra note 49, 287 F.Supp. at 564. On the opposite end are courts and ju......
-
McIntire v. Ford Motor Co., No. C-3-00-213.
...litigation exceeds $75,000, either for each named Plaintiff or for all named Plaintiffs when considered in the aggregate. See Goldsmith, 426 F.2d at 1398 ("[S]ince we have concluded above that the right to be protected here is incapable of valuation in monetary terms, appellant has failed t......
-
State v. Jackson
...United States v. Viggiano, 433 F.2d 716, 717 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 938, 91 S.Ct. 934, 28 L.Ed.2d 219; Louie v. United States, 426 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir.); Wooten v. United States, 380 F.2d [162 Conn. 452] 230, 232 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 942, 88 S.Ct. 302, 19 L.Ed.......
-
Holman v. Board of Education of City of Flint, Civ. A. No. 74-40065.
...plaintiff might recover at law, but rather the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented," supra, 426 F.2d at 1398. It is at least arguable that the extent of the injury to be prevented in the instant case is the monetary loss to each individual plaintif......