United States v. Brookins
Decision Date | 06 March 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 27067.,27067. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward BROOKINS, Defendant Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
S. Gunter Toney, Toney & Guarisco, Tallahassee, Fla., for appellant.
Floyd M. Buford, U. S. Atty., Manley F. Brown, D. L. Rampey, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Macon, Ga., Walker P. Johnson, Jr., U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for appellee.
Before RIVES, COLEMAN, and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
Edward Brookins was indicted for and found guilty of violating 26 U.S.C. §§ 5179(a) and 5601(a) ( ); 5173 and 5601(a) ( ); 5602 (carrying on the business of a distiller with intent to defraud the government of taxes); 5180 and 5681(c) ( ); and 5205(a) (2) and 5604(a) ( ). The case was tried to the District Judge, without a jury. We reverse.
An agent for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division testified that on January 30, 1968, he, with two other agents, was looking for a whiskey still in the woods, near a creek, about five hundred yards from the Brookins residence. He knew Brookins on sight, and in the hearing on the motion to suppress stated, over objection, that he knew Brookins to be a "major violator" of the liquor laws in that area. This knowledge seems to have been supported by at least one fairly recent conviction for such an offense, as well as upon several arrests which contributed to the unfavorable reputation of the appellant as to such activities. Two of the officers located the still and observed an individual (not Brookins) working thereat. The still was running and its water pump could be heard from a distance of fifty or sixty yards. The odor of mash was detectable for a considerable distance.
The officer posted himself at a point in the edge of the woods and adjacent to a cultivated field, approximately twenty-five yards from the still. From this observation point Brookins was seen walking through the woods, headed in a straight line for the still. He was carrying two small paper bags. He stopped when he saw the agent and was forthwith arrested. One of the paper bags, whether seized before or after the formalities, contained twenty-five corks and a plastic jug spout. The corks found in the bag fitted plastic jugs found at the still site. Eighteen of those jugs had no corks. The second bag contained a lunch. After the arrest of Brookins the other officer went to the still and arrested its operator, who pleaded guilty to the indictment returned against him.
Brookins was conducted to the still yard and given a complete Miranda warning, after which he stated to the officers that he was glad it was all over, that he could not sleep the previous night for fear of impending detection. He admitted that he made the still and its condenser and that he was its owner. He further stated that this was the third time the still had operated. On this particular day approximately eighty gallons of whiskey had been run off. Brookins said that the run had been delayed for about two weeks, due to the delaying effects of cool weather on the fermentation of the mash.
The exact circumstances of the arrest can best be described by quoting the testimony of the arresting agent.
Brookins testified that he was arrested at a point which was 191 yards from the still and also denied making the incriminating statements attributed to him by the arresting officer.
Brookins contended in the court below, and argues here, that the arrest was without probable cause and therefore unlawful, with the corresponding result that his incriminating statements were inadmissible, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
Obviously, therefore, the crucial issue is whether there was probable cause for the arrest.
In Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 171, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959), the Supreme Court spoke as follows:
In the same case, at another point, 361 U.S. 101, 80 S.Ct. 168, the Court said:
This Court has consistently followed the principles enunciated in Henry, Wooten v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 380 F.2d 230, cert. denied 389 U.S. 942, 88 S.Ct. 302, 19 L.Ed.2d 294; Nicholson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 355 F.2d 80, cert. denied 384 U.S. 974, 86 S.Ct. 1866, 16 L.Ed.2d 684; Miller v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 356 F.2d 63, cert. denied 384 U.S. 912, 86 S.Ct. 1357, 16 L.Ed.2d 365.
Of course, an arrest is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses, Henry v. United States, supra; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 15, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436.
Stated in elementary terms, the rule is that in determining the validity of an arrest on probable cause, the Court is dealing with "probability" and not with the "certainty" that an offense has been or is being committed, Clay v. United States, 8 Cir., 1968, 394 F.2d 281, and each case turns largely on the facts existing at the time of the arrest.
What were the facts known to the officer at the moment he arrested Brookins? He knew that there was a still in operation within five hundred yards of the Brookins home. He knew that at that very moment an unidentified person not Brookins was operating the still. There was a field road which began at the Brookins house and ended at the still, although...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Clemas v. United States
-
United States v. Fallon
...to the two inquiries. 3 Grants is some distance from Albuquerque, about a one and one-half hour drive. 4 See, e. g., United States v. Brookins, 423 F.2d 463 (5th Cir. 1969). 5 Ruiz v. Craven, 425 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1970), wherein the confession was held to be inseparably connected with the ......
-
United States v. Brookins
...the two offenses.7 With some exceptions to be noted, the facts are fully and accurately stated in Judge Coleman's original opinion (423 F.2d at 464 and 465) and in the writer's special concurrence (423 F.2d at 468). An inaccurate statement occurs on p. 467, that Nowicki, the arresting offic......
-
United States v. Kilgen
...of the extrajudicial statements and reserve the right to file a dissenting opinion when the Court announces its decision in United States v. Brookins, 423 F.2d 463, now pending on rehearing before the Court en 1 On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, that Court found that there was n......