U.S. v. Sneed
| Citation | 732 F.2d 886 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-8410,83-8410 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Edward SNEED, a/k/a "Rat", Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
James Pardo, Atlanta, Ga. (Court Appointed), for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before HILL, JOHNSON and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant, Willie Edward Sneed, was indicted and convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia for the offense of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2113(d). Briefly, the evidence reflected that on January 18, 1983, a lone black male, identified at trial as defendant, entered the Gray Highway Branch of Fulton Federal Savings and Loan Association located in Macon, Georgia, and, after exhibiting a firearm, took approximately $6,000 which was money belonging to and in the custody and control of the bank. The deposits of the bank were insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on the same date as the robbery the appellant was observed at 455 Pursley Street, Macon, Georgia. Also present at the Pursley Street address were Brenda Burnett, the occupant-lessee, and her small children. After defendant's arrival at the Pursley Street apartment, witness Edward Howard came into the apartment and inquired what the "detectives" were doing out front. Upon Howard's making this inquiry, the defendant got up, left the living room of the apartment and went into the apartment's only bedroom. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived on the Pursley Street scene at about the same time and showed Ms. Burnett the bank robbery surveillance photographs. Burnett immediately identified the defendant and told the FBI agent that the defendant was in the living room of her apartment. Burnett also gave the agents permission to search her apartment for evidence. Agent Ken Howard and a police detective then entered Burnett's apartment. Upon entering, the agent recognized the defendant from the surveillance photographs and when the agent told the defendant not to go for his gun, the defendant responded: "I don't have the gun, I threw it away when I left the bank." Upon searching the apartment with Burnett's permission, the officers and agents discovered a pillow case containing approximately $4,800 in currency including six $50 bait bills from the Fulton Federal teller cash drawers. The pillow case and its contents had been stuffed behind a chest of drawers in the bedroom of Burnett's apartment.
Prior to trial the defendant, through his counsel, filed a motion to suppress all evidence secured by the officers from their search of the apartment located at 455 Pursley Street. In the motion to suppress the defendant alleged that he was taken into custody and was arrested without a warrant and without probable cause and that after he was removed from the Pursley Street premises the arresting officers illegally conducted a search of said premises and improperly and illegally seized the pillow case containing approximately $4,800 in United States currency. The motion to suppress further alleged the said items were seized without the permission of the petitioner and were not seized incident to a lawful arrest. The suppression motion further alleged that the search and seizure was illegal. The government filed a response to the motion to suppress alleging that the defendant had no possessory interest or expectation of privacy in the premises located at 455 Pursley Street, Macon, Georgia, and, further, that the defendant had no standing to contest the seizure of any evidence taken from the Pursley residence because he had no legal interest in the property seized. The district court denied the defendant's motion to suppress and motion for a pretrial hearing on the motion. However, the court left the matter open for defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Acosta
...facts that, if proved, would require the grant of relief.’ ”) (citations omitted); Cooper, 203 F.3d at 1285 (citing United States v. Sneed, 732 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir.1984) (per curium)). The court also notes that a wiretap order is presumed to be valid and that a defendant has the burden ......
-
United States v. Known, Criminal File No. 1:10–CR–251–10–TWT.
...held that an evidentiary hearing on the issue of standing was not warranted. Cooper, 203 F.3d at 1285 (quoting United States v. Sneed, 732 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir.1984)). The former Fifth Circuit's discussion in United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981),3 upon which Lisb......
-
United States v. Restrepo Naranja
...the Defendant does not have the requisite standing to suppress the currency as he abandoned any interest he had. U.S. v. Sneed, 732 F.2d 886 (11th Cir.1984). Even if the Defendant did have standing to suppress the search, the law enforcement officers had not only reasonable suspicion but pr......
-
United States v. Mills
...on a ‘promise’ to prove at the hearing that which they did not specifically allege in their motion to suppress."); United States v. Sneed, 732 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir. 1984) (affirming district court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress and refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing w......
-
Constitutional Criminal Procedure - James P. Fleissner, Sarah B. Mabery, and Jeanne L. Wiggins
...hearing on their motion to suppress. Id. 72. Id. at 1284 (citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 131 n.l (1978); United States v. Sneed, 732 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir. 1984)). 73. Id. 74. Id. (citing United States v. Conway, 73 F.3d 975, 979 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Carter, 854 F.2......