United States v. Altizer, Crim. No. 23580.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1970
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 23580.
• Citation: 308 F. Supp. 376
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Noah Willis ALTIZER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

308 F. Supp. 376

UNITED STATES of America v. Noah Willis ALTIZER.

Crim. No. 23580.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

January 13, 1970.

Joseph Ritchie, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Carolyn E. Temin, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

OPINION

MASTERSON, District Judge.

This is a motion by defendant to suppress evidence based upon the illegality of his arrest.

The defendant in this case is charged with passing four forged one hundred dollar postal money orders in West Virginia.¹ He was arrested on July 13, 1967 in a tavern in Philadelphia. The facts leading up to defendant's arrest are as follows:

At approximately 11:45 P.M. on that date Officer John Kennedy of the Philadelphia Police Force was approached by an unidentified well-dressed man in the vicinity of the tavern. He told the officer that he had just been approached in the tavern by a dark haired, poorly-dressed man who offered to sell him postal money orders with a value of "not more than" one hundred dollars for ten dollars each. The man giving this information stated to the officer that he believed the money orders were stolen from a post office. The informer further stated that the individual who attempted to sell him the money orders was seated in the tavern with a stack of money orders in his back pocket next to a man dressed in ladies' clothing. The officer failed to obtain the identity of the informer.

Based upon what the informer told, him, the officer proceeded to the tavern in question. When he entered the bar he saw a man who fitted the informer's description seated next to a man wearing a ladies' blouse and slacks. He observed a stack of postal money orders protruding from the back pocket of the defendant. The officer seized the money orders and arrested the defendant. It was subsequently discovered that these money orders had been stolen from a Bryant, Alabama, post office.

On the basis of the foregoing facts, defendant moves to suppress certain items of evidence on the ground that his arrest was illegal. The evidence which defendant moves to suppress includes:

(1) the money orders seized by Officer Kennedy;

(2) an identification card in the name of Samuel R. Boynton which was taken from the defendant;

(3) the identification made of the defendant by postal inspector Combs as the man wanted in West Virginia for passing forged money orders;

(4) a picture of defendant from the Philadelphia Police Department mug book which was sent to West Virginia for the purposes of identifying defendant.

We have concluded that the arrest was legal and, accordingly, defendant's motion must be denied.

The issue that is presented to us has already been presented to the Courts of Pennsylvania in connection with a State prosecution of Altizer involving other money orders found in defendant's possession at the time of his arrest. The Superior Court of the State of Pennsylvania in the case of Commonwealth v. Altizer, 213 Pa.Super. 201, 245 A.2d 692 (1968), in a well-reasoned opinion, held that defendant's arrest was legal. We are fully in accord with that opinion. We would, however, add the following. Defendant relies heavily on the cases of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1968). These cases establish the rules by which the legality of an arrest based upon an informer's tip is to be determined. They require that...