State v. DeWolfe

• Decision Date: 20 June 1979
• Docket Number: No. 76-242-C,76-242-C
• Citation: 121 R.I. 676,402 A.2d 740
• Parties: STATE v. William P. DeWOLFE, Jr. A.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 740

402 A.2d 740

121 R.I. 676

STATE v. William P. DeWOLFE, Jr.

No. 76-242-C.A.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 20, 1979.

[121 R.I. 685] Dennis J. Roberts, II, Atty. Gen., John S. Foley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Cappuccio & Cappuccio, Frank S. Cappuccio, Westerly, for defendant.

OPINION

DORIS, Justice.

On December 12, 1976, the defendant, William P. DeWolfe, Jr., was convicted by a Superior Court jury on an indictment charging him with various narcotics offenses. ¹ In this appeal, the defendant argues that his conviction rests upon evidence obtained in contravention of the fourth amendment, that he was a victim of entrapment by the police, and that the court below improperly admitted evidence of extraneous criminal activity by the defendant.

At trial, the state presented the following evidence. Robert F. Lippman, a special employee ² of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, testified that he first met defendant in April of 1974 at a party held at the home of a mutual friend. The defendant was at that time a student at the University of Rhode Island. Lippman testified that at that party and on subsequent occasions during the next few weeks he witnessed defendant selling or distributing various drugs. Lippman eventually made arrangements for him and his "partner," special agent Thomas A. Battell (Battell), to purchase a large quantity of amphetamines from defendant. This sale was consummated on May 8, 1974, when Lippman and Battell met with defendant at defendant's Kingston Inn apartment and defendant sold them 2,300 amphetamine pills.

Later in the month, the undercover agents approached defendant about the purchase of a large quantity of LSD. A meeting was arranged for May 21. Battell and Lippman testified that on this date, at about 9:15 p. m., they again met with defendant at his apartment. Battell and defendant agreed on a transaction of 16,000 doses of LSD for $8,000. The defendant then telephoned one Robert D'Ambra (D'Ambra) and made arrangements for the delivery of the drugs. The defendant told the agents that the drugs would arrive in 1 1/2 hours and that they should return at that time. As the agents were leaving, defendant accompanied them to their car where another undercover agent showed defendant $11,000 as available purchase money.

Battell and Lippman returned to defendant's apartment at 10:45 p. m. Accompanying them, but hidden outside, was a backup team of federal agents and South Kingston police, led by Captain H. Ronald Hawksley (Hawksley). A short time later, D'Ambra arrived and carried two boxes containing 8,000 units of LSD into defendant's apartment. Battell and D'Ambra then briefly renegotiated the price and quantity terms of the sale. According to Battell, D'Ambra stated that because he did not know the agents that well he would only sell them half of the 16,000 doses that had been previously agreed upon. D'Ambra promised, however, that if this sale was successful, he would sell the agents the other 8,000 doses.

Following their discussion, Battell left, ostensibly to acquire the purchase money. Once outside, Battell gave a prearranged signal to the backup team and then returned to the apartment with his "money man," another federal agent. As Battell reentered the apartment, he left the door open. Moments later the backup team rushed in, arrested defendant, and seized the LSD.

After the arrest, Battell testified that he and Hawksley decided to seek a warrant to search the rest of defendant's apartment. At 11 p. m. a warrant was issued to Hawksley based on an affidavit submitted by Battell. According to testimony by Hawksley, defendant's apartment was then searched and two bottles of amphetamines were found in a dresser drawer.

In this appeal, defendant first submits that the warrantless seizure of the LSD incident to the arrest was unlawful. The defendant argues in substance that because there was ample time to secure an arrest warrant, the contraband seized was the fruit of an unlawful arrest. We find no merit in this contention. The defendant was arrested while in the act of selling a controlled substance to federal drug enforcement agents. It is undisputed that the agents were on the premises consensually. In such circumstances, an arrest may be made lawfully without a warrant. General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 12-7-4 provides:

"Arrest without warrant for felony. A peace officer may without a warrant arrest a person for a felony, whenever:

(a) The officer has reasonable ground to believe that a felony has been or is being committed and that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing it.

(b) The person to be arrested in fact has committed or is committing a felony, and in such case it shall be immaterial that the officer did not believe him guilty or on unreasonable ground entertained belief in his guilt."

The warrantless seizure of contraband pursuant to a valid arrest is an exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 34-35, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1630-31, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, 739 (1963); State v. Brown, 106 R.I. 453, 459, 260 A.2d 716, 719 (1970). There is no question that in the instant case the LSD was seized incident to the arrest. Indeed, defendant admitted that the LSD had been transferred to the possession of the federal agents before the police entered and made the arrest.

The defendant next contends that the trial justice erred in curtailing defendant's right to call witnesses at a suppression hearing held shortly before trial. At this hearing, defendant was the first witness to testify. The defendant admitted that he had participated in the LSD transaction on May 21, and he admitted that his arrest and the seizure of the LSD had taken place after the consensual transfer of the LSD to the undercover agents. He claimed, however, that the bottles of amphetamines the subject matter of count 2 of the indictment were discovered in a search of his apartment at the time of the arrest, well before the police obtained a search warrant. Captain Hawksley testified next. His testimony contradicted defendant's in one significant respect; he stated that the bottles of amphetamines were not discovered until after the search warrant was secured. At the conclusion of Hawksley's testimony, the justice denied the motion to suppress and refused to allow defendant to examine further witnesses stating that there was ample probable cause for both the arrest and for the issuance of the search warrant.

Although we do not endorse the restrictive nature of the hearing in this case, we are not persuaded that it was reversible error. Generally, wide latitude should be granted to counsel to proffer evidence in support of a motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the fourth amendment. This is not to say, however, that counsel has an unfettered right to use the hearing as a discovery device. After a motion has been made to suppress evidence obtained by search and seizure, Rule 41(f) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that: "The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion."

In the instant case the trial justice stated, and we agree, that the candid testimony of defendant himself indicated with ample sufficiency that probable cause existed to arrest defendant and seize the LSD lawfully. We see no reason therefore why more testimony was necessary to rule on this issue.

The defendant also argues that he had a right to examine other witnesses regarding the search warrant. The defendant especially contends that he had a right to examine Battell, the affiant of the warrant affidavit. However, defendant's written suppression motion submitted to the court below neither mentions the search warrant nor the affidavit. ³ Nor did defendant orally supplement his motion at the hearing with any explanation why he thought the search warrant was invalid or the affidavit insufficient. ⁴ Alleging mere conclusions that the warrant and affidavit were "not sufficient" is not enough. United States v. Hickok, 481 F.2d 377, 379 (9th Cir. 1973); United States v. Davis, 330 F.Supp. 899, 903 (N.D.Ga.1971). As one court has remarked, "(e)videntiary hearings need be held only when the moving papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that relief must be granted if the facts alleged are proved." United States v. Carrion, 463 F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir. 1972).

Accordingly, the only question properly before the justice was whether probable cause was facially established within the four corners of the affidavit. With the warrant issue presented in this fashion, we do not believe that the trial justice erred by refusing to let defendant examine the affiant, United States v. Thornton, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 114, 123-24, 454 F.2d 957, 966-67 (1971), or to call other witnesses. See ...