United States v. LaMacchio, 15381

Decision Date23 June 1966
Docket NumberNo. 15381,15382.,15381
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph LaMACCHIO and Louis Felix Tuccillo, Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Joseph M. More, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

Robert A. Baime, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., (David M. Satz, Jr., U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., on the brief) for appellee.

Before STALEY, SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WILLIAM F. SMITH, Circuit Judge.

The appellants were tried and convicted on each of four counts of an indictment charging them with the armed robbery of a bank in violation of § 2113 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. They challenge the validity of their convictions solely on the ground that certain evidence, a portion of the proceeds of the robbery,1 was improperly introduced at the trial over their timely objection. They maintain that the evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure and was therefore inadmissible. The propriety of the search and seizure depends upon the legality of warrantless arrests made by special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shortly after the robbery.

The authority of agents of the Bureau to arrest without a warrant is derived from § 3052 of Title 18 U.S.C.A., as amended, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

"The Director, * * * and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation * * * may * * * make arrests without warrant * * * for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony." (Emphasis supplied).

The "reasonable ground" requirement of the statute is equivalent to the "probable cause" requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); United States v. Elgisser, 334 F.2d 103, 109 (2nd Cir. 1964), cert. den., Gladstein v. United States, 379 U. S. 879, 85 S.Ct. 148, 13 L.Ed.2d 86. The legality of the warrantless arrests here in question must be tested by this standard. If they were made without probable cause the subsequent search and seizure was illegal.

Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officers, and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that an offense has been or is being committed and that the person to be arrested was or is the offender. Henry v. United States, supra; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 313, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); United States v. Elgisser, supra; Williams v. United States, 308 F. 2d 326 (D.C.Cir. 1962).

It is uncontroverted that the crime for which the arrests were made had been committed. The narrow question which must be determined is whether the arresting officers had reasonable grounds to believe that the appellants were the offenders. This determination must be based upon a consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances. United States v. Bianco, 189 F.2d 716, 721 (3rd Cir. 1951); Ralph v. Pepersack, 335 F.2d 128, 132 (4th Cir. 1964), cert. den. 380 U.S. 925, 85 S.Ct. 907, 13 L.Ed. 2d 811.

On the morning of October 16, 1964, shortly after 9 A.M., the Pine Brook office of the State Bank of North Jersey was robbed by two men wearing stocking masks. The bank employees described one of the suspects as a white male approximately six feet tall and weighing 200 pounds, possibly an Italian having a large Roman nose and wearing a dark raincoat and brown shiny shoes of the loafer type. They described the second suspect as a white male approximately five feet five inches tall, having sharp features and weaing a dark raincoat over a business suit.

The supervisor of the local office of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Alexander v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 19, 1966
  • United States v. Carney
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • May 21, 1971
    ...grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony." 18 U.S.C. § 3052. United States v. La Macchio, 362 F.2d 383 (3rd Cir. 1966). "Any offense punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year is a felony." 18 U.S.C. § 1. Mr. Carney ......
  • State v. Washington
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1968
    ...742, 13 L.Ed.2d 684; Rodgers v. United States, 8 Cir., 362 F.2d 358; Alexander v. United States, 9 Cir., 362 F.2d 379; United States v. LaMacchio, 3 Cir., 362 F.2d 383. We find nothing in our jurisprudence nor in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court which imposes on evidence add......
  • United States v. Low
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 11, 1966
    ...to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony." (Emphasis supplied.) In United States v. LaMacchio, 362 F.2d 383 (3d Cir. June 23, 1966), the Court said in reference to § 3052, Title 18 U.S.C.A., a parallel statute (see discussion, "The `reasonable gro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT