U.S. v. Killebrew, 78-5233

Citation594 F.2d 1103
Decision Date16 April 1979
Docket NumberNo. 78-5233,78-5233
Parties4 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 43 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcia Ann KILLEBREW, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

Paul L. Decocq, Howell, Mich. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Harold A. Johnson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Flint, Mich., Jay E. Brant, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WEICK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

WEICK, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Killebrew has appealed from her conviction by a jury in the District Court on a superseding indictment charging her and Edward McDaniels of possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and also charging Killebrew with aiding and abetting, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). She was sentenced to three years imprisonment, to be followed by a special parole term of three years. McDaniels entered a plea of guilty.

Prior to the trial Killebrew had filed a motion to suppress evidence of heroin seized from McDaniels when they were both arrested, alleging that the arresting officers did not have probable cause to arrest them. The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law, and held that probable cause to make the arrests existed, and denied the motion to suppress.

Killebrew contends on appeal that the Court erred in denying her motion to suppress and in admitting hearsay evidence, and contends that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. We disagree, and affirm.

The evidence offered at the suppression hearing, as well as that offered at the trial, revealed that Killebrew and McDaniels were at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and they purchased tickets under the names of Mr. and Mrs. McDaniels, to fly to Los Angeles. Prior to boarding for the flight, they were required to submit to a security check at the airport, during which time Killebrew's hand bag was opened, and large sums of money estimated at about $50,000, were observed by a Metropolitan Airport police officer. This information was given by the officer to a Federal Drug Enforcement Agent (DEA), who alerted Los Angeles police of the anticipated arrival of the couple.

The police, along with the DEA, were present when the couple arrived at Los Angeles airport. The couple rented a car and drove to a Howard Johnson Motel where they registered. The police set up a surveillance team, and with the consent of the Motel management, they obtained a room adjoining the room of the couple. Later, Willie Harris, who had an extensive criminal record and a recent arrest for possession of heroin, was seen entering the room of the couple. Later, Killebrew met with Harris and accompanied him a short distance to a private residence.

During the two days' stay of the couple at the Motel the surveillance team overheard a number of drug related conversations coming from their room. 1 After the couple checked out of the Motel the team, again with the approval of the Motel management, searched the couple's room and found pieces of paper in the waste paper basket which contained traces which field tested for "opiates of heroin."

The couple checked into another Motel near the airport and purchased tickets at the airport for a return flight via Chicago to Grand Rapids, the tickets being purchased in the name of Cooper. The Los Angeles police notified a DEA agent in Detroit of the surveillance and of the departure plans of the couple. This information was relayed to the DEA agent in Grand Rapids, who later advised the Detroit agent that the couple had not arrived in Grand Rapids, but had changed their route to Flint, Michigan. The Detroit DEA agent then called Flint police and requested that they arrest the couple.

When the couple arrived at Flint, Michigan, they were observed entering a waiting automobile with two other persons, and were followed by the police. When their auto suddenly made a U-turn in the road they were arrested. A pat down search of McDaniels disclosed two packets of heroin hidden in his sock.

The District Judge in his findings of fact and conclusions of law denying the motion to suppress, stated:

The possession of a large sum of cash by defendant Killebrew, the association in Los Angeles, California...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • U.S. v. Calandrella
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 31, 1979
    ...about the arrest or the admissibility as against him of any of the evidence seized thereby. See Rakas, supra; United States v. Killebrew, 594 F.2d 1103, 1105 (6th Cir. 1979). As regards Kaye, the government contends that the complaint, when read as a whole, was sufficient to establish proba......
  • U.S. v. Davis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • June 18, 2008
    ...that the Government has wholly relied on hearsay testimony. Hearsay evidence is admissible at suppression hearings. United States v. Killebrew, 594 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir.1979) ("In a suppression hearing to determine probable cause hearsay evidence is admissible."); United States v. Sissler, No......
  • Gilmore v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • August 24, 1983
    ...cert. denied, 441 U.S. 910, 99 S.Ct. 2005, 60 L.Ed.2d 380; United States v. Agostino, 608 F.2d 1035 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Killebrew, 594 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 933, 99 S.Ct. 2867, 61 L.Ed.2d 302; Brewer v. Wolff, 529 F.2d (8th Cir.1976). See also Dorsey ......
  • United States v. Stepp
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 17, 2012
    ...the court may rely on hearsay and other evidence, even though that evidence would not be admissible at trial.”); United States v. Killebrew, 594 F.2d 1103, 1105 (6th Cir.) (affirming admission of hearsay evidence at suppression hearing) (citing United States v. Lee, 541 F.2d 1145, 1146 (5th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Pretrial motions and notice of defenses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Criminal Practice
    • April 30, 2022
    ...Harmon , 742 F.3d 451, 460 n.6 (10th Cir. 2014); United States v. Bunnell , 280 F.3d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 2002); United States v. Killebrew , 594 F.2d 1103, 1105 (6th Cir. 1979) (court may admit hearsay in determining probable cause). For privilege, see Chapter 8, §§8:85 et seq . §11:35 Defenda......

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