Riggan v. Com.
| Citation | 144 S.E.2d 298, 206 Va. 499 |
| Case Date | October 11, 1965 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Page 298
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
[206 Va. 500] Louis Koutoulakos, Arlington (Varoutsos, Koutoulakos & Arthur, Arlington, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
M. Harris Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Page 299
SNEAD, Justice.
Upon a plea of not guilty, Walter Francis Riggan, defendant was found guilty by a jury and in accordance with the verdict was sentenced by the court to a term of one year in the penitentiary and a fine of $500 on an indictment charging that he did 'on or about the 22nd day of January, 1963, operate and conduct a lottery, commonly known as the Numbers Game,' in violation of Code, § 18.1-340. Defendant is here upon a writ of error and supersedeas awarded him to the judgment rendered on the verdict.
On January 22, 1963, at approximately 9 a. m., William K. Stover, a member of the vice squad of the Arlington county police department, appeared before Judge Paul D. Brown and made affidavit 1 for a warrant to search the premises 'known as Apartment 604C, 3000 Spout Run Parkway' in Arlington county in connection with the [206 Va. 501] alleged operation of a lottery or numbers game therein. Pursuant thereto the judge issued the warrant. 2 About a half hour later Stover met with Sergeant Kadel and other members of the vice squad. It was then decided that the 'raid' would take place about 4 p. m. on that day and that the members of the squad would meet in the manager's office of the apartment house at 3 p. m.
Page 300
Sergeant Kadel and detective Hughes arrived at the apartment house between 2 and 2:30 p. m., secured a master key to the building from the manager, entered the telephone room in the basement, proceeded to tap the telephone wire to apartment 604C which was to be searched, and listened to conversation passing over the wire. Kadel said that he 'listened in to make sure there wasn't any tip-offs.' Hughes stated that his 'particular reason [for listening] was primarily curiosity' and also to obtain information about other operations.
The officers involved in the raid had obtained information from a confidential source prior to going to the apartment house that a person would appear at the door to apartment 604C at approximately 4 p. m. They knew that the door was barred and they made arrangements with the tenant across the hall for them to wait in her apartment until this person arrived at apartment 604C. Shortly after 3 p. m. officers Stover, Bonneville, Moorefield, Hayden, Hughes and Kadel entered the apartment across the hall, and about 4 p. m. a woman, later identified as Marian Williams, appeared at the door to apartment 604C. When the door was opened for her to enter, the [206 Va. 502] officers rushed in immediately behind her. As they entered Stover announced: 'Police, we have a search warrant for numbers slips.'
Riggan, the defendant, was in the living room attired in his pajamas. There were two beds in the bedroom placed against one another in an L-shape. Carmen Nodarra, who rented the apartment, was on one of the beds and was dressed in 'lounging' clothes. Numbers slips, desk pads, paper pads, pencils, dice, an address book, telephones, a telephone book, a purse and a walking cane were found on the beds. The officers also found $118.42 in coins and currency and a stack of 'cut cards' in a dresser drawer and $167 in coins and currency together with numbers slips in the handbag of Marian Williams, the person who entered the apartment immediately before the raid commenced.
In the closets there were about twenty suits of clothes together with shirts, ties and a pair of bedroom slippers which belonged to defendant. Near the entrance door was a steel bar which fitted into brackets bolted on the door frame.
After the officers announced that they had completed their search, Riggan went to a dresser, took a roll of $20 bills from the bottom of 'a little lamp or something' and put the money into his pocket. He told Carmen Nodarra: 'Don't say anything, they have got us, don't say nothing.'
The following ruturn was made on the search warrant by officers Stover and Bonneville:
'Executed the within warrant on January 22, 1963 by searching Apartment 604C, 3000 Spout Run Parkway, Arlington, Virginia and seizing three telephones, three desk pads, one bag containing dice, pencisl (sic), ruler, telephone books and numbers slips, lewd books, cut cards, U. S. currency in amount of $118.42, U. S. currency in amount of $167.00, approx. 150 capsules of dexamyl, 1 ladies handbag containing billfold with ident, and miscellaneous papers and one steel bar, and taking into custody one Walter F. Riggan, Carmen D. Nodarra and Marian Williams in whose premises the said articles were found. Given under my hand this 23rd day of January 1963.'
In his assignments of error, defendant contends that the court erred (1) in refusing to quesh the search warrant and affidavit; (2) in refusing to grant his motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and wire tap; (3) in refusing to strike the Commonwealth's evidence, and (4) in refusing to set aside the verdict and grant him a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary [206 Va. 503] to the law and the evidence and the corpus delicti had not been proved.
First, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the affidavit upon which the
Page 301
search warrant was issued. Officer Stover stated the following material facts in the affidavit as constituting probable cause for the issuance of the warrant: 'Personal observation of the premises and information from sources believed by the police department to be reliable.' Defendant says that the uncontroverted testimony revealed that Stover did not have the premises under personal observation. He further states that there was 'no evidence of any reliable character to suggest that defendant was engaged in any numbers operation.' Hence, he argues, the affidavit and warrant were void. We find these contentions to be without merit.Stover did testify at the hearing on the motion to quash that he personally did not have the individual apartment (604C) under observation until after he had obtained the search warrant and just before the raid. However, the uncontradicted evidence shows that the had the apartment building under surveillance. Stover testified that on three occasions during the months of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spinelli v. United States, 18389.
...express no opinion on the other issues raised by the appellant. --------Notes: 1 This information was taken from Riggan v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 499, 144 S.E. 2d 298, 299 (n. 1) (1965). There is nothing to indicate that the recital of facts in the opinion of Mr. Justice Clark, dissenting fr......
-
Tisnado v. U.S., 75-1066
...378 U.S. 108, 109, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Riggan v. Virginia, 384 U.S. 152, 86 S.Ct. 1378, 16 L.Ed.2d 431 (1966), rev'g 206 Va. 499, 144 S.E.2d 298, 299 n.1 (1963); Clemas v. United States, 382 F.2d 403, 406 & n.3 (8th Cir. 1967), it failed to provide underlying facts from wh......
-
Hoover v. Beto, 29587.
...378 U. S. 108 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723,\' thus applying Aguilar to a search conducted by Virginia officers on January 22, 1963 (see 206 Va. 499, 144 S. E.2d 298), long prior to the decision in 439 F.2d at 917. Of course, we are all bound now to agree that a choice of giving retrospecti......
-
State v. Kraft, 344
...was credible, or that his information was reliable. See Riggan v. Virginia, 384 U.S. 152, 86 S.Ct. 1378, 16 L.Ed.2d 431 (1966) (reversing 206 Va. 499, 144 S.E.2d 298). 'The most commonly accepted and approved allegation to substantiate reliability is that the informer is a person of known a......
-
Spinelli v. United States, 18389.
...express no opinion on the other issues raised by the appellant. --------Notes: 1 This information was taken from Riggan v. Commonwealth, 206 Va. 499, 144 S.E. 2d 298, 299 (n. 1) (1965). There is nothing to indicate that the recital of facts in the opinion of Mr. Justice Clark, dissenting fr......
-
Tisnado v. U.S., 75-1066
...378 U.S. 108, 109, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Riggan v. Virginia, 384 U.S. 152, 86 S.Ct. 1378, 16 L.Ed.2d 431 (1966), rev'g 206 Va. 499, 144 S.E.2d 298, 299 n.1 (1963); Clemas v. United States, 382 F.2d 403, 406 & n.3 (8th Cir. 1967), it failed to provide underlying facts from wh......
-
Hoover v. Beto, 29587.
...378 U. S. 108 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723,\' thus applying Aguilar to a search conducted by Virginia officers on January 22, 1963 (see 206 Va. 499, 144 S. E.2d 298), long prior to the decision in 439 F.2d at 917. Of course, we are all bound now to agree that a choice of giving retrospecti......
-
State v. Kraft, 344
...was credible, or that his information was reliable. See Riggan v. Virginia, 384 U.S. 152, 86 S.Ct. 1378, 16 L.Ed.2d 431 (1966) (reversing 206 Va. 499, 144 S.E.2d 298). 'The most commonly accepted and approved allegation to substantiate reliability is that the informer is a person of known a......