United States v. Blum, 23681.

• Decision Date: 01 October 1970
• Docket Number: No. 23681.,23681.
• Citation: 432 F.2d 250
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Frank Howard BLUM, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

432 F.2d 250 (1970)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Frank Howard BLUM, Appellant.

No. 23681.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 1, 1970.

Ron Bain, (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

John Hornbeck, (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES and ELY, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER, District Judge.^*

PLUMMER, District Judge.

Appellant, Frank Howard Blum (Blum) was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, after trial by court on a stipulation of facts, of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (d). A timely appeal was taken to this court which has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291 and 1294(4).

The threshold question presented is whether probable cause existed at the time a police radio broadcast was initiated requesting Blum's arrest for passing counterfeit bills.

The facts and circumstances known to the law enforcement officers at the time the broadcast was made, are shown by the evidence presented at the hearing on Blum's motion to suppress on May 23, 1968. At approximately 3:10 P.M. on the afternoon of Sunday, February 11, 1968 Captain Hubert L. Meeker (Captain Meeker) and Sergeant Jimmy Gwatney (Sergeant Gwatney) of the City Police Department of Lake Charles, a small town in southwestern Louisiana, in response to a call over the police radio, drove to a Shell service station operated by a local businessman, Donald Ray Toussand (Toussand). Toussand reported to Captain Meeker that he had received four one dollar bills from a customer and that he believed the bills were counterfeit.

Prior to this incident, an item had appeared in the local newspaper that counterfeit bills were being passed in the community.

Captain Meeker had been with the Lake Charles Police Department for

thirteen years and had known Toussand for several years. He inquired of Toussand whether he could identify the person and vehicle of the individual who had given him the bills and Toussand stated that he could. Captain Meeker then examined the bills, and after doing so, came to the same conclusion reached by Toussand, that the bills were counterfeit.

After talking with Toussand and examining the bills, Captain Meeker, Sergeant Gwatney and Toussand got into the police car and traveled east on Interstate 10 toward Jennings, Louisiana to overtake Blum. Captain Meeker contacted the Sheriff's Office and had a message broadcast over the radio to be on the lookout for a 1961 or 1962 Pontiac Tempest convertible, white over red, with California plates, one white male driving, and that the driver was wanted by the Lake Charles police for passing counterfeit bills. This broadcast was heard by Norman J. Roy (Trooper Roy), a member of the Louisiana State Police who, a short time later arrested Blum without a warrant on Interstate 10 Highway near Welch, Louisiana.

Probable cause to arrest a person exists where the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge, and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information prior to the arrest are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that an offense has been committed by such person. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); United States v. Cleaver, 402 F.2d 148 (9th Cir.1968); Hollins v. United States, 338 F.2d 227 (9th Cir.1964).

In the absence of an applicable federal statute, the law of the State where an arrest without a warrant takes place determines its validity. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). Under Louisiana law, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant when he has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed an offense, although not in his presence. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, Act 310 of 1966, effective January 1, 1967, Article 213.

In Pendergrast v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 20, 416 F.2d 776, 783 (1969), the Court stated:

"Probable cause for a warrantless arrest is the constitutional criterion by which its legality is measured. And `"(t)he substance of all the definitions" of probable cause "is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt."\' Thus, `(w)hen the constitutional validity of an arrest is challenged, it is the function of the court to determine whether the facts available to the officers at the moment of the arrest would "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that an offense has been committed\' by the arrestee."

"This essential determination, however, is not of the actuality of guilt, but rather of its likelihood. The factual predicates for a finding of probable cause need not approach that moral certainty of guilt upon which a conviction after trial must rest, but are sufficient though only appearances that a reasonable mind could accept as grounds for believing in guilt. `In dealing with probable cause, * * * as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. The standard of proof is accordingly correlative to what must be proved.\'"

"So it is that a showing of probable cause involves considerably less than the demonstration of guilt demands. The indicia of guilt need not be absolute, or even fully consistent; they may leave some room for doubt, and even for error. But they suffice, we repeat, when they `warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief\' of guilt." (Footnotes omitted).

In Long v. United States, 422 F.2d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir.1970) this court stated:

"Probable cause must be evaluated from the viewpoint of prudent and cautious police officers on the scene at the time of arrest. The issue is whether police officers, acting together, in particular circumstances, all conditioned by their observations and information and guided by their total police experience, reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arrested."

We have carefully reviewed the entire record in this case in the light of the governing principles of law set forth above. Having done so we conclude that on the basis of the facts and circumstances known to the police officers involved, or as to which they had reasonably trustworthy information, that probable cause existed for Blum's arrest. See Bates v. United States, 352 F.2d 399 (9th Cir.1965); United States v. Masini, 358 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1966); cf. United States v. Smith, 357 F.2d 318, 319 (6th Cir. 1966).

Captain Meeker arrived a short time after Blum's arrest and searched the vehicle he had been driving. He did not talk with Blum prior to making the search. As a result of his search he seized a canvas bag containing about $15,000.00, a gun, ammunition, polo shirt, cap, glasses and a sock. This search was incident to a valid arrest and the District Court...