U.S. v. McDonald
| Decision Date | 13 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-5256,79-5256 |
| Citation | 606 F.2d 552 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ray McDONALD, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Arthur Parker, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
Herbert H. Henry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a conviction for jumping bail. James Ray McDonald was indicted in February 1976 on counterfeiting charges. He was released on bail but failed to appear for trial. Warrants for his arrest were issued. A year and a half later, while using the alias of Robert James Parks, appellant was arrested, identified as being McDonald, and charged with bail jumping in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3150. Appellant now claims that his conviction on that charge should be reversed since (i) the District Court erred in overruling appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an allegedly illegal arrest, and (ii) the Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was the same McDonald named in the counterfeiting indictment. We reject both claims and affirm.
Appellant first claims that his arrest was illegal. He was arrested while driving away from a residence which Florida police officer Timothy Robinson had under surveillance. Officer Robinson had seen a FBI wanted flyer on McDonald and received information from a reliable informant connecting McDonald with that residence. Robinson had also obtained a physical description, a photograph, and the fingerprints of McDonald, as well as a list of aliases. Officer Robinson had furthermore obtained a National Crime Information Center (NCIC) printout showing that there was an outstanding warrant for McDonald's arrest. Appellant asserts that the NCIC printout was too unreliable a source of information concerning the existence of an outstanding warrant, resulting in a lack of probable cause to arrest.
It is clear that Officer Robinson had probable cause to arrest appellant under Florida law, so long as the officer reasonably believed that appellant was the subject of a federal arrest warrant. United States v. Bowdach, 5 Cir., 1977, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168; State v. Outten, Fla., 1968,206 So.2d 392, 397. 1 While NCIC printouts are not alone sufficient Evidence to permit Conviction, 2 the cases uniformly recognize that NCIC printouts are reliable enough to form the basis of the reasonable belief which is needed to establish probable cause for arrest. United States v. Palmer, 9 Cir., 1976, 536 F.2d 1278, 1283 (); United States v. Davis, supra (dictum). Cf. United States v. Hines, 10 Cir., 1977, 564 F.2d 925, 927-28 (), Cert. denied, 1978, 434 U.S. 1022, 98 S.Ct. 748, 54 L.Ed.2d 770; United States v. Godwin, 4 Cir., 1975, 522 F.2d 1135, 1136 (). Furthermore, there was unimpeached testimony at appellant's trial establishing that NCIC information "has proved reliable in the past as an indicator (of) who in fact is wanted as a fugitive." Having seen Both a recent NCIC printout and a FBI wanted flyer on McDonald, Officer Robinson clearly had probable cause to effect the arrest in this case.
Appellant secondly attacks the sufficiency of the evidence introduced to link him with the McDonald named on the counterfeiting indictment and bail jumping warrant. At trial, Officer Robinson, the Clerk of the District Court of the District in which McDonald had been indicted, and a federal agent all testified that "the defendant" was the subject of the counterfeiting indictment and bail jumping warrant. Although none of those witnesses were directly asked to testify concerning appellant's identity, the offering of proof by the Government was similar to that found sufficient in Rodriguez v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sosa v. Martin Cnty.
...reliable enough to form the basis of the reasonable belief which is needed to establish probable cause for arrest." United States v. McDonald , 606 F.2d 552 (5th Cir.1979) (citation and quotation marks omitted).In short, a warrant established the probable cause in Sosa's case while an NCIC ......
-
Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Dept.
...984, 989 (11th Cir. 1983) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer radioed NCIC and learned of warrant); United States v. McDonald, 606 F.2d 552, 553-54 (5th Cir. 1979) ("While NCIC printouts are not alone sufficient [e]vidence to permit [c]onviction, the cases uniformly recognize th......
-
Sosa v. Martin Cnty.
... ... ... WILLIAM PRYOR, CHIEF JUDGE ... This ... appeal requires us to decide whether an individual detained ... for three days based on mistaken identity for a valid arrest ... warrant has stated a claim ... of the Bill of Rights against the states through the ... Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See, ... e.g. , McDonald v. City of Chicago , 561 U.S ... 742, 759-80 (2010) (holding that the Due Process Clause ... incorporates the Second Amendment right to ... ...
-
U.S. v. Roper, 82-8476
...Crime Information Center and learned of the Cobb County warrant for Roper's arrest for probation violation. In United States v. McDonald, 606 F.2d 552 (5th Cir.1979), although the officer had seen both an FBI "wanted" flyer and an NCIC printout, the court stated that "the cases uniformly re......