United States v. Outland
| Decision Date | 12 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1930.,72-1930. |
| Citation | 476 F.2d 581 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie Hugh OUTLAND, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert P. Hurlbert, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff-appellant; Ralph B. Guy, Jr., U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on brief.
Richard M. Lustig (Court appointed), Zemke & Lustig, P. C., Southfield, Mich., for defendant-appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, MILLER, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
The Government appeals from the District Court's suppression of evidence seized under two search warrants. The facts of the case are detailed in the District Court's opinion. 345 F.Supp. 1250 (E.D.Mich. 1972). For the herein stated reasons, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
The District Court suppressed the evidence for two reasons: (1) postal and customs authorities waited 85 days after seizing the contraband in a Customs inspection of two mailed packages before seeking search warrants the day before delivering the packages; (2) the affidavits upon which the warrants were based were insufficient because they did not establish a chain of custody of the contraband during the 85 days and did not indicate how the Customs agent knew the packages were to be delivered the following day.
This court holds that the affidavits1 were sufficient under the Supreme Court's mandate in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1964), to test affidavits for warrants "in a commonsense and realistic fashion." The underlying circumstances were sufficiently presented to the magistrate to justify the issuance of the warrants. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). The chain of custody of the contraband would possibly be necessary to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, but was not necessary for the finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. Cf. United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 584, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1970).
When the magistrate was told by the Customs official in his affidavit that the packages, then in the hands of a postal inspector, would be delivered by the United States Postal Service, there was probable cause to believe such packages would be so delivered.
As for the delay between the seizure of the contraband and the seeking of the warrants, we find nothing in the record to show that this delay was unreasonable. We remand this case for an evidentiary hearing at which the District Court will adduce the reasons for delay and any possible prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. The mere showing of delay does not per se transform the legal seizure, United States v. Beckley, 335 F.2d 86 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, Stone v. United States, 380 U.S. 922, 85 S.Ct. 921, 13 L.Ed.2d 807 (1964), into a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The District Court's use of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wright
...in their separate opinions, infra. Anticipatory warrants 4 have been upheld in many jurisdictions. See, e.g., United States v. Outland, 476 F.2d 581 (6th Cir.1973); United States ex rel. Beal v. Skaff, 418 F.2d 430 (7th Cir.1969); United States v. Feldman, 366 F.Supp. 356 (D.Hawaii 1973); J......
-
State v. Womack
...who lived at the address in question, see, e.g., United States v. Becerra, 97 F.3d 669, 670 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Outland, 476 F.2d 581, 582 n. 1 (6th Cir.1973); United States ex rel. Beal v. Skaff, 418 F.2d 430, 432 (7th Cir.1969), these police practices are not necessary to show......
-
Ex parte Oswalt
...United States v. Lowe, 575 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 869, 99 S.Ct. 198, 58 L.Ed.2d 180 (1978); United States v. Outland, 476 F.2d 581 (6th Cir.1973); United States ex rel. Beal v. Skaff, 418 F.2d 430 (7th Cir.1969); Johnson v. State, 617 P.2d 1117 (Alaska 1980); State v. ......
-
Ward v. Commonwealth
...of government-controlled deliveries are more likely to reach their destinations than other types of deliveries"); United States v. Outland, 476 F.2d 581, 583 (6th Cir.1973) (holding that where "the magistrate was told by the Customs official in his affidavit that the packages, then in the h......