United States v. Henry

• Citation: 259 F.2d 725
• Decision Date: 04 November 1958
• Docket Number: No. 12306.,12306.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Patrick HENRY and Albert Rudolph Pierotti, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

259 F.2d 725 (1958)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Patrick HENRY and Albert Rudolph Pierotti, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 12306.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

October 2, 1958.

Rehearing Denied November 4, 1958.

Edward J. Calihan, Jr., Chicago, Ill., James P. Piragine, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Robert Tieken, U. S. Atty., Bernard J. Waters and John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellee.

Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and HASTINGS and PARKINSON, Circuit Judges.

HASTINGS, Circuit Judge.

Appellants, John Patrick Henry and Albert Rudolph Pierotti, were convicted under a one-count indictment charging them with the unlawful possession, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C.A. § 659, of three cartons of radios stolen from an interstate shipment. This appeal is based on alleged errors of the trial court in overruling the motions of both appellants to suppress evidence used in this cause and in its denial of appellant Henry's motion for a judgment of acquittal.

It is appellants' contention that the pre-trial hearing on their motions to suppress established that they were the victims of an unlawful arrest and search without warrant by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and that, consequently, the evidence uncovered in the search, the three cartons of radios, should properly have been suppressed.

George Stadtmiller, one of the two Federal agents who arrested appellants, was the only witness called by appellants in support of their motions to suppress and was, indeed, the sole witness in the pre-trial hearing on the motions. From his testimony are found the following facts: Agent Stadtmiller and Agent John J. Oitszinger who accompanied him were, on the day of the arrest, May 14, 1957, investigating leads to a reported theft of whiskey from the Hayes Freight Lines located in Chicago, Illinois, which had occurred the night before. Stadtmiller indicated that he was acquainted with both appellants, (although he was not asked to explain in what connection he knew them) and also testified that he had received information concerning the "implication of defendant Pierotti with interstate shipments," this information purportedly coming from a Mr. Lieberman, vice president of the Ziffrin Truck Lines and employer of Pierotti. There is no indication in the record in what manner Pierotti was so implicated.

Appellants were first observed by the agents, on the day of the arrest, emerging from the Red Top Lounge located at 2903 South Wallace Street, Chicago, Illinois, at about 2:10 p. m. They then walked to a 1953 two-door black and white Ford parked across the street and, with Pierotti driving, were observed to travel by a rather indirect route to an alley between Union and Lowe streets. The agents, who had followed, parked their car, walked to the end of the alley and observed Henry leave the car occupied by appellants and enter a gangway. Henry returned in about two minutes carrying some cartons which he placed in the car. Appellants drove off and were lost to the view of the agents. The agents then returned to their car and drove through various streets looking for appellants' car which they finally located parked in its original position opposite the Red Top Lounge on Wallace Street. The agents parked nearby and shortly thereafter observed Henry and Pierotti leave the Lounge. After engaging in conversation with a man known to the agents as Steve Bedlow, appellants returned to their car and drove back to the same alley where Henry was again observed getting out of the car, entering the gangway and returning shortly carrying some more cartons which he again placed in the car. The agents saw all this at a distance of some 300 feet and could not have known at that time the contents of the cartons, their number or size. Appellants then drove away, followed by the agents, and a few minutes later at about 2:50 p. m. were intercepted by the agents who motioned them to stop as the two cars approached each other traveling along Wallace Street. Henry got out of the car leaving the car door open and approached the agents. He was overheard to say to Pierotti: "Hold it. It's the G's," and "Tell him he you? just picked me up." The three cartons bearing shipping labels which indicated they were part of an interstate shipment were plainly visible to Agent Stadtmiller through the open door of the car.

Stadtmiller testified further that:

"* * * We asked them about the ownership of the car, and Mr. Pierotti said it wasn\'t his car, and he said it was Babe\'s car, and that he had borrowed it. And we asked him about the cartons that were in the car, and he said that they were in the car when he —

"The Court: Just a minute. All right, go ahead.

"By the Witness:

"A. (Continuing) We asked him about the cartons that were in the car, and he said that they were in the car at the time he borrowed it from the owner.

* * * * * *

"Q. What, if anything, else was said by you to the defendants and by the defendants to you at that time and place? A. Well, after they said, after Mr. Pierotti said the cartons were in the car at the time he borrowed it, we asked them if they had just been at the Red Top Lounge, and Mr. Henry said that he may have been earlier that day as he was visiting numerous taverns. Mr. Pierotti said he had just got off work at 2:30.

"Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether or not that was correct? A. Well, I had seen him at 2:10 away from work."

Appellants were then taken into custody. It was ultimately determined, between 4:30 and 5:00 p. m. of that day, that the cartons in question had been stolen from a motor truck of the Ziffrin Truck Lines, and appellants were then officially informed that they were under arrest and of the charges against them.

Appellants raise the contention that the stopping of their car and resulting discovery of the cartons of radios plainly visible through the open door of the car was an unlawful search. Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution a lawful search of a car moving on a public thoroughfare may be had without a warrant providing probable cause for the search exists. Brinegar v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879; Carroll v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543.

The Supreme Court of the United States in the Carroll case observed that:

"On reason and authority the true rule is that if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon probable cause, that is, upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, the search and seizure are valid. The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens.

* * * * * *

"`The search for and seizure of stolen or forfeited goods, or goods liable to duties and concealed to avoid the payment thereof, are totally different things from a search for and seizure of a man\'s private books and papers for the purpose of obtaining information therein contained, or of using them as evidence against him. The two things differ toto coelo. In the one case, the government is entitled to the possession of the property; in the other it is not. The seizure of stolen goods is authorized by the common law * * *.\'" Carroll v. United States, supra, 267 U.S. at pages 149-150, 45 S.Ct. at page 283.

In the Brinegar case the Supreme Court stated that probable cause "has come to mean more than bare suspicion: Probable cause exists where `the facts and circumstances within their (the officers') knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information (are) sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that' an offense has been or is being committed." Brinegar v. United States, supra, 338 U.S. at pages 175-176, 69 S.Ct. at page 1310.

This court has defined probable cause as "reasonable grounds of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the party is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. * * * And what constitutes probable cause must be determined from the standpoint of the officer with his skill and knowledge, rather than from the standpoint of the average citizen under similar circumstances." United States v. Sebo, 7 Cir., 1939, 101 F.2d 889, 890. The agent need not have legal evidence of a suspected illegal act. Brinegar v. United States, supra, 338 U.S. at pages 174-175, 69 S.Ct. 1302; Gilliam v. United States, 6 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 321, 323. It is only necessary that the facts and attendant circumstances are such as would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that articles are illegally possessed in the automobile to be searched. Husty v. United States, 1931, 282 U.S. 694, 701, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed. 629.

We hold that there existed probable cause for the search in this case. The agents, while investigating for leads to a reported theft of whiskey which had occurred the previous night, observed appellants' unusual behavior set forth above. Both appellants were known to the agents, and appellant Pierotti known by them to be involved or implicated in interstate shipments in some manner. As in the Brinegar and Carroll cases, no problem of search of a home or other place of privacy is involved. These cases involve the freedom to use public thoroughfares in swiftly moving vehicles for dealing in contraband. Not every traveler may be stopped and searched at an officer's whim or mere suspicion, but it is clear that here the facts within the agents' knowledge amounted to more than mere suspicion and constituted probable cause for their action in stopping appellants' car.

The arrest and taking...