United States v. Llanes
| Decision Date | 08 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 261,Docket 30133.,261 |
| Citation | 357 F.2d 119 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Raymond LLANES, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Paul K. Rooney, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, and Neal J. Hurwitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Joshua N. Koplovitz, New York City (Anthony F. Marra, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge, and FEINBERG, District Judge.*
The United States appeals, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1404(2), from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered September 29, 1965, which suppressed narcotics seized from the defendant at the time of his arrest on June 25, 1965. We hold that probable cause existed for the arrest and search, and reverse the order of the district court.
As the defendant's counsel conceded on this appeal, the testimony of the federal agents before Judge Cashin clearly established that they had probable cause to believe Llanes was in illegal possession of heroin. The defendant told an undercover agent he had the "stuff" and that agent signalled the information to the arresting officer only moments before the arrest.
We find no merit to appellee's suggestion that the district judge suppressed the evidence because he did not believe the agents' testimony. Asked by the government to explain the basis for his ruling and whether he accepted the facts testified to by the agents the judge replied:
We see no reason to doubt that Judge Cashin meant that he believed the agents, particularly since there was no opposing testimony to contradict that of the agents, nor any argument that the evidence should not be credited in its essential details.
Although district court judges are not required to make findings on a hearing to suppress evidence under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(e), this case illustrates how useful even brief findings would be. It would be the better practice to make such findings when, as here, one party seeks them and it is apparent that an appeal may be taken.
We note that after suppressing the narcotics Judge Cashin released the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phelper v. Decker
...Ed.2d 908. 6 Fact-findings by the trial judge have been held to be unnecessary, but they are certainly helpful. See United States v. Llanes, 2 Cir., 1966, 357 F.2d 119, 120. 7 Implicit in this argument is the assumption that Wong Sun laid down constitutional rules and not supervisory rules ......
-
Landy v. Irizarry
...or associates to make an arrest.'") (quoting Williams v. United States, 308 F.2d 326, 327 (D.C.Cir. 1962)). See also United States v. Llanes, 357 F.2d 119, 120 (2d Cir.1966). Cf. Rivera, 1993 WL 76202, at Even if probable cause was lacking, Defendants Irizarry and Lafferty would be entitled......
-
United States v. Desist, 313
...note that those who buy and sell narcotics normally use vague euphemisms or jargon to describe their contraband. See United States v. Llanes, 357 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966) ("stuff"); United States v. Ramsey, 374 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1967) ("good `treys'"). The basic defect of the argument is the......
-
United States ex rel. Cunningham v. Follette
...as words acquire special meaning in context, see United States v. Ramsey, 374 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1967) (good "treys"); United States v. Llanes, 357 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966) ("stuff"), so do actions or objects. To an experienced narcotics officer, suddenly handing over a brown paper bag in a b......