United States v. McCreary, 71-1409.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1409.,71-1409. |
| Citation | 455 F.2d 647 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Thomas McCREARY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Lowell W. Lundy, Barbourville, Ky., for defendant-appellant.
James E. Arehart, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee; Eugene E. Siler, Jr., U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on brief.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and WEICK and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant McCreary has appealed from his conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, on an indictment charging him with wilfully and knowingly possessing a firearm, namely a Charter Arms Corporation "Undercover" .38 Special revolver, after having been convicted of the felony of possessing distilled spirits in unstamped containers, on April 3, 1957, and again on April 1, 1963, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) (1), which provides punishment for one who "receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce ... any firearm," after having been convicted of a felony.
McCreary raised two issues in his appeal, namely, (1) that the statute under which he was indicted and convicted (18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) (1)) is an ex post facto law and violates Article I § 9 of the Constitution; and (2) that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the revolver because the officers who arrested him without a warrant did not have probable cause to make the arrest and to search the vehicle which he was driving.
In our opinion the contention that the statute is an ex post facto law and violates Article I Section 9 of the Constitution has no merit. Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), followed in United States v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971). See also Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002 (1898); United States v. Karnes, 437 F.2d 284 (9th Cir. 1971).
Don F. Nierengartein and James L. Brown, both of whom were Special Investigators for the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the Treasury Department, drove their automobile across the end of a bridge and stopped the defendant who was driving a pickup truck. They proceeded to search the truck for moonshine whiskey. No whiskey was found in the truck, but agent Brown found the revolver in the glove compartment in the cab of the truck.
The arrest and search which followed were based on information received by Nierengartein over the telephone from a reliable informer, to the effect that McCreary had moonshine whiskey in his vehicle which would be coming from Middlesboro, Kentucky, and that he would use the "Page Cut-off" on the way to his residence at Hulan, Kentucky. Furthermore, the informer stated the time that McCreary would be leaving, the description of the vehicle he would be driving, and its license number.
Moreover, the informer was not anonymous. Nierengartein knew his identity and had dealt with him in the past. On two different occasions the informer had given Nierengartein information about the defendant's activities in connection with moonshine whiskey and it had proved to be accurate. On one occasion, however, the search warrant was suppressed as being insufficient.
Nierengartein also knew McCreary by sight, knew that he was a convicted felon, and knew that McCreary dealt in moonshine whiskey, and Nierengartein had seen his truck. About twenty minutes after Nierengartein received the tip, McCreary appeared at the location where the informer said he would be, driving the blue and white pickup truck which had been described.
The uncontroverted facts as detailed above clearly establish that the federal agents had probable cause to make the arrest and search the truck. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959).
The District Court relied on our decision in United States v. Thacker, 382 F. 2d 732 (6th Cir. 1967), wherein we held that probable cause was shown under circumstances quite similar to those in the present case.
The fact that something was found other than what was searched for, does not invalidate the search. United States v. Eisner, 297 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1962).
One other matter should be mentioned. Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971), involved a similar offense. In that case we held that possession of a firearm by Stevens, who had been convicted previously of a felony, violated 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a) (1), even though the indictment did not charge, and the evidence did not establish, that the firearm had moved in commerce or affected commerce. Judge Celebrezze dissented.
In the present case, the District Court postponed the trial to await the decision of our Court in Stevens. In our decision in Stevens we declined to follow a contrary decision in United States v. Bass, 434 F.2d 1296 (2d Cir. 1970). The Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Craven
...specifically established by the government's evidence. 9 See United States v. Brown, 472 F.2d 1181 (6th Cir. 1973); United States v. McCreary, 455 F.2d 647 (6th Cir. 1972). 10 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase, sell, dispense, or distribute narcotic drugs e......
-
United States v. Day, 72-1898.
...of the statute. Viewing this concern as an allegation that the statute was an ex post facto law, we reject it. United States v. McCreary, 455 F.2d 647, 648 (6th Cir. 1972). Day's assertion that the statute is somehow fatally tainted by lack of hearings or committee reports is III. Yockey's ......
-
U.S. v. Jones
...follows that the revolver had been transported in interstate commerce in order for it to reach Kentucky. In United States v. McCreary, 455 F.2d 647 (6th Cir. 1972), the defendant was charged with possession, but not with receipt, as in the case at bar. This Court noted that while the offens......
-
United States v. Williams, 72 H CR 133.
...do we. * * * * * * Brown was convicted of receiving and possessing the firearm. However, as we pointed out in United States v. McCreary, 455 F.2d 647 (6th Cir. 1972), one could not very well possess a firearm without receiving In United States v. Giannoni, supra, the defendant was convicted......