U.S. v. Williams, 75-1933
| Decision Date | 18 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1933,75-1933 |
| Citation | 538 F.2d 549 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Fred Robert WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Sterling H. Moore, Richmond, Va. (court-appointed), for appellant.
George P. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va. (William B. Cummings, U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before CRAVEN, RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
Having waived a jury trial, Fred Robert Williams was convicted by the Court of possession of tools used to falsely make, forge, alter and counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315. On appeal he makes the following assignments of error: (1) admission of incompetent evidence; (2) failure of the government to establish the requisite interstate nexus; and (3) insufficiency of the evidence. Finding no merit in any of these contentions, we affirm.
On October 17, 1974, four FBI agents arrived at defendant's motel room in Henrico County, Virginia, seeking to interview him in regard to certain bank robberies. 1 After knocking and identifying themselves, the agents entered the room with defendant's consent. 2 During the course of the interview, the agents noticed a typewriter case in the corner of the room. Defendant informed the agents that it did not belong to him and that he had no idea to whom it belonged. The agents inquired if there were any other items in the room which did not belong to him and he indicated a brief case next to the night-stand. When asked by the agents if he objected to their opening the brief case he replied "no" since it was not his. The agents discovered in the brief case a checkwriter, credit cards, dozens of identification cards of people from all parts of the country, blank and cancelled checks, among other things. Defendant was then placed under arrest and advised that he would be taken to the FBI office, together with his belongings. Defendant proceeded to get toilet articles from a bag and one of the agents examined the contents of this bag to see if there were any weapons in it. He found a tube containing gold coins which he returned to the bag.
The agents later obtained a search warrant for the items which defendant admitted to be his. The search warrant listed "credit cards, blank checks, miscellaneous identification, and other paraphernalia used in the manufacture of fraudulent securities * * *." A u-seal-it plastic card, a red telephone index directory, a Jet-Air employee identification card in the name of Cornelius A. Zino with an attached photo of defendant, several photographs of defendant and others, and the tube of gold coins were found in defendant's belongings.
Defendant argues that the Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the items seized at the time of the agents' interrogation of the defendant at the motel on the ground that it was a warrantless search without consent and prior to arrest; and further that all the items seized under the search warrant were not listed in the search warrant even though the agents knew they were there. The record, however, shows that defendant voluntarily admitted the agents into his motel room, disclaimed ownership of the brief case and the typewriter case and stated that he had no objection to a search of the cases. His disclaimer is analogous to abandonment and made the cases subject to seizure. Defendant must demonstrate that he comes within the constitutional protection by showing that he has standing, that his rights were violated, that his effects were unreasonably searched, and this he has failed to do. 3 The evidence contained in the cases was therefore properly admitted.
As to the items seized under the search warrant, the Court granted defendant's motion to exclude several of the items discovered pursuant to the search warrant for lack of relevance and the government concedes on appeal that the red telephone index directory, the photographs and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Han
...his example of the opposing view is a decision of this court. See 4 LaFave, supra, Sec. 11.3(a) at 288 n. 43 (citing United States v. Williams, 538 F.2d 549 (4th Cir.1976)). The facts in Williams were very similar to this case. FBI agents entered the Williams's hotel room with his permissio......
-
Williams v. Com.
...it did not. By disclaiming ownership of the briefcase, Williams abandoned it for fourth amendment purposes. See United States v. Williams, 538 F.2d 549, 550-51 (4th Cir.1976). Williams argues, however, that the entire search was invalid because the scope of the warrant was overly broad. The......
-
U.S. v. Denny
...determination that Defendant intended to abandon the bag based on Defendant's own unequivocal statements. See United States v. Williams, 538 F.2d 549, 550-51 (4th Cir.1976) (defendant's express disclaimer of ownership interest in typewriter and briefcase inside his motel room constituted ab......
-
United States v. Ferebee
...search the backpack, not after. As the Fourth Circuit has long held, "disclaimer is analogous to abandonment ...." United States v. Williams, 538 F.2d 549, 551 (4th Cir. 1976) (disclaiming ownership of a briefcase immediately prior to search). The Fourth Amendment protects people, not prope......