Rugendorf v. United States

Decision Date30 March 1964
Docket NumberNo. 223,223
Citation84 S.Ct. 825,11 L.Ed.2d 887,376 U.S. 528
PartiesSamuel Joseph RUGENDORF, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

David C. Acheson, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Following a trial by jury, petitioner was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 23151 by knowingly receiving, concealing and storing 81 stolen fur pieces, the fur pieces having been transported in interstate commerce and having a value exceeding $5,000. The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction despite petitioner's objections that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict; that the fur garments should have been excluded from evidence because they were seized on the authority of a search warrant supported by a deficient affidavit; and that the names of certain confidential informants referred to in the affidavit should have been disclosed. 316 F.2d 589. We granted certiorari, 375 U.S. 812, 84 S.Ct. 61, 11 L.Ed.2d 47, and affirm the judgment.


The search warrant under attack was issued by the United States Commissioner on the strengthof an affidavit dated March 22, 1962, and signed by Marlin Moore, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The affidavit stated that Moore had reason to believe that approximately 80 fur stoles and jackets, taken in a burglary in Mountain Brook, Alabama, and w rth about $40,000, were concealed in the basement of a single family residence at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue in Chicago.

Moore supported this allegation with statements that L. Dean Paarmann, a Special Agent of the Birmingham, Alabama, Office of the FBI, informed Moore that on February 10, 1962, 82 mink, otter, and beaver stoles and jackets (but no full-length coats), worth approximately $42,044, were stolen in Mountain Brook, Alabama, and that on March 16, 1962, a confidential informant who had furnished reliable information in the past told Moore that during the previous week he saw approximately 75 to 80 mink, otter and beaver stoles and jackets (but no full-length coats) in the basement of the home of Samuel Rugendorf at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue, Chicago. The labels had been removed and the informant was told that the furs were stolen.

Moore further supported the allegation with the following statements: FBI Special Agent McCormick advised affiant that a confidential informant whom the FBI had found to be reliable told McCormick that Frank Schweihs of Chicago, and others, committed the Alabama robbery; McCormick told the affiant that on or about March 1, 1962, James Kelleher, a Chicago police officer, said to McCormick 'that he saw FRANK SCHWEIHS at RUGGENDORF (sic) BROTHERS MEAT MARKET, managed by SAMUEL RUGGENDORF (sic) * * *; further, Agent McCORMICK advised this affiant that another confidential informant who has furnished reliable information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the past told McCORMICK that LEO RUGGENDORF (sic) was a fence for FRANK SCHWEIHS; that SAMUEL RUGGENDORF (sic) was LEO RUGGENDORF'S (sic) brother and was associated in the meat business with his brother.'

The affidavit also stated that another FBI Special Agent, J. J. Oitzinger, told the affiant that another confidential informant who had supplied the FBI with reliable information in the past advised Oitzinger that Frank Schweihs, Tony Panzica and Mike Condic were accomplished burglars who disposed of the proceeds of their burglaries through Leo Rugendorf.

Finally, the affidavit alleged that, upon checking the informant's description of the furs seen at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue, affiant found that the only reported burglary in the United States in the previous six months involving furs of that description and value was the one occurring at Mountain Brook, Alabama.

Pursuant to the search warrant based on this affidavit, a search was made and 81 furs were found in the basement of petitioner's residence. Fifty-nine of these furs had been stolen in Mountain Brook and the other 22, in Shreveport, Louisiana. Prior to trial, the trial court heard testimony on petitioner's motion, under Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,2 to suppress the use of the seized furs as evidence. The trial court denied the motion insofar as it challenged the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, but reserved ruling on the truthfulness of the affidavit. During the trial, another hearing was held on the reserved aspect of the motion to suppress and the motion was denied. Also denied was a motion to require the Government to disclose the names of the confidential informants referred to in the affidavit.


Petitioner attacks the validity of the search warrant. This Court has never passed directly on the extent to which a court may permit such examination when the search warrant is valid on its face and when the allegatons of the underlying affidavit establish 'probable cause'; however, ass ming, for the purpose of this decision, that such attack may be made, we are of the opinion that the search warrant here is valid. Petitioner contends that probable cause did not exist because the only relevant recitations in the affidavit were the one informant's statements that he saw the furs in petitioner's basement and that he was told that they were stolen. However, the informant's detailed description of the furs, including number and type, closely resembled Special Agent Paarmann's description of the furs stolen in Alabama. The affiant checked the burglary report records and found the Alabama burglary to be the only recent one in the United States involving furs of the description and number that the informant saw in petitioner's basement. In addition, the affidavit alleged that Leo and Samuel Rugendorf were brothers and that Leo was a fence for professional burglars. Although one of the informations who gave the latter information added, incorrectly, that Samuel Rugendorf was associated with Leo in the meat business,3 there was direct information from another informant of the FBI that Leo was a fence, and nothing was shown to prove this untrue. The factual inaccuracies depended upon by petitioner to destroy probable cause—i.e., the allegations in the affidavit that petitioner was the manager of Rugendorf Brothers Meat Market and that he was associated with his brother Leo in the meat business—were of only peripheral relevancy to the showing of probable cause, and, not being within the personal knowledge of the affiant, did not go to the integrity of the affidavit.

We believe that there was substantial basis for the Commissioner to conclude that stolen furs were probably in the petitioner's basement. No more is required. As we said in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960):

'We conclude * * * that hearsay may be the basis for a warrant. We cannot say that there was so little basis for accepting the hearsay * * * that the Commissioner acted improperly. * * * He might have found the affidavit insufficient and withheld his warrant. But there was substantial basis for him to conclude that narcotics were probably present in the apartment, and that is sufficient.'

Petitioner also contends that the withholding of the identities of the informants was a sufficient ground to require suppression of the evidence. But in Jones, supra, we said that 'as hearsay alone does not render an affidavit insufficient, the Commissioner need not have required the informants * * * to be produced * * * so long as there was a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.' 362 U.S. at 272, 80 S.Ct. at 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697. Petitioner's only challenges to the veracity of the affidavit are the two inaccurate facts mentioned above. Since the erroneous statements that petitioner was the manager of Rugendorf Brothers Meat Market and was associated with Leo in the meat business were not those of the affiant,4 they fail to show that the affiant was in bad faith or that he made any misrepresentations to the Commissioner in securing the warrant.


Petitioner also asserts that he was entitled to the name of the informer who reported seeing the furs in his basement in order to defend himself at trial on the merits. This claim was not properly raised in the trial court nor passed upon there, and, accordingly, must be denied here. On two occasions—once prior to and the other during the trial—petitioner urged his motion to suppress the evidence as to the furs, contending that there were 'factual errors' in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. It was solely in support of this motion—not on the merits—that petitioner requested all of the informants' names. This is made clear by petitioner's motion for new trial:

'9. The court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for the government to reveal the names of the informers when such information was necessary to the constitutional rights of the defendant in pursuing his motion to suppress the evidence.' (Emphasis added.)

He relied entirely on suppression, which, if successful, would have ended the case. Failing in this, petitioner asserted, for the first time, in his reply brief in the Court of Appeals that the name of the single informant who saw the furs was vital both for the suppression hearing and for the defense at trial, because the informant alone knew whether he 'participated with persons other than the defendant' in placing the furs in the basement. Apparently this was an attempt to bring the facts of the case within Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), where the informant had played a direct and prominent part, as the sole participant with the accused, in the very offense for which the latter was convicted. But there was not even an intimation of such a situation at the trial here. The necessity for disclosure depends upon 'the particular...

To continue reading

Request your trial
632 cases
  • People v. Buchanan
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 22, 1972
    ...between events personally observed by her and events related to her by others. (See fn. 5, Ante.) In Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 531--532, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887, 891, the Supreme Court, while expressly reserving to future decision the question of the propriety of an att......
  • People v. Superior Court (Bingham)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 1979
    ...of the affidavit's double hearsay, a search warrant based mainly on that information was affirmed. In Rugendorf v. United States (1964) 376 U.S. 528, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887, a federal law enforcement officer in Alabama had reported information from two Alabama police informers and a p......
  • Wheeler v. Goodman, Civ. A. No. 2431
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • May 11, 1971
    ...circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, see Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887, was `credible' or his information `reliable.' Otherwise, `the inferences from the facts which lead to the comp......
  • People v. Pineda
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 1967 predicated upon Nathanson (378 U.S. at p. 112, 84 S.Ct. 1512), and other earlier cases. (See also Rugendorf v. United States (1964) 376 U.S. 528, 531--533, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887; and Jones v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 257, 267--271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697.) There are no g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away: the century of Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" doctrine.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 100 No. 3, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...with a warrantless arrest for armed robbery made in the house shortly after the report of the robbery). (276) 362 U.S. 257 (1960). (277) 376 U.S. 528 (278) 386 U.S. 300 (1967). (279) For evidence that the police sometimes resorted to perjury in warrant applications, see, e.g., Myron W. Orfi......
  • Witness
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...of whether the identity of an informant must be disclosed is determined on the facts of each individual case. Rugendorf v. United States , 376 U.S. 528 (1964). While there is no absolute right to disclosure, there is also no absolute right to withhold the name of the informant. However, to ......
  • Bearing false witness: perjured affidavits and the Fourth Amendment.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 41 No. 3, June 2008
    • June 22, 2008
    ...Brown, 3 F.3d 673 (3d Cir. 1993); United States v. Schauble, 647 F.2d 113 (10th Cir. 1981). (127.) See, e.g., Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 532-33 (1964) (holding warrant valid where statements were not made by affiant); United States v. Calisto, 838 F.2d 711, 714 n.2 (3d Cir. 1......
  • The Supreme Court of the United States, 1963-1964
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 17-4, December 1964
    • December 1, 1964 a result of the search inadmissible.&dquo; The validity of a search warrant was brought into question in Rugendorf v. United States (376 U.S. 528; 84 S.Ct. 825). Rugendorf had been convicted knowingly concealing stolen fur garments. The furs were found in the basement ofRugendorf’s home ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT