United States v. Roberts

Decision Date19 November 1971
Docket NumberCrim. No. 12900.
Citation333 F. Supp. 786
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Steven Wayne ROBERTS.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

John L. Bowers, U. S. Atty., George Garrett, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

William M. Barker, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FRANK W. WILSON, Chief Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, the evidence sought to be suppressed being non tax paid whiskey seized as a result of a search of the defendant's automobile upon August 25, 1971. An evidentiary hearing was held upon the motion at which the following facts were made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt.

At approximately 11:30 P.M. on August 24, 1971, two government agents were advised by a person identified in the record only as an "informer" that upon the following evening, between 7:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M., a 1969 or 1970 Plymouth Barracuda automobile driven by the defendant and bearing Tennessee License # 49-E-623 would be travelling south on Highway 150 between Tracy City, Tennessee and Jasper, Tennessee, and would be hauling a large quantity of non tax paid whiskey. The information given by the informer was based at least in part upon personal knowledge and not merely upon repeating matters that he had been told by others. One of the government agents had known the informer for an unspecified period of time and had received information from him upon at least three previous occasions, which information proved reliable and which had led to convictions in two criminal cases earlier in the year.

Acting upon the assumption that they did not have sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant, the government agents set up a surveillance upon Highway 150 at approximately 4:00 P.M. upon August 25, 1971. At sometime between 7:00 and 8:00 P.M. an automobile fitting the description given by the informer was sighted travelling south on Highway 150. The agents set up a partial road block and the automobile, which was being driven by the defendant, came to a stop. One of the agents asked the defendant to get out of the automobile, which he did. At this point the other agent came around the rear of the defendant's automobile. As he did so, he smelled an odor of whiskey coming from the area of the trunk. Both government agents also noticed that a spare tire was lying in plain view in the rear seat of the automobile. One of the agents then got the keys from the ignition of the defendant's automobile and opened the trunk where he found 50 gallons of non tax paid whiskey in one-gallon plastic jugs. The defendant was then searched for weapons and placed under arrest.

Upon the basis of the foregoing record the Court is of the opinion that the search was a valid search and that the motion to suppress should accordingly be denied. It is first contended on behalf of the defendant that insufficient probable cause existed to permit a search. The Court is of the opinion that the information given by the informant, when confirmed by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • United States v. Watson
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1976
    ...probable cause formed, just moments before the arrest. A warrant based on anticipated facts is premature and void. United States v. Roberts, 333 F.Supp. 786 (ED Tenn.1971). 16 Thus, unlike a search warrant, an arrest warrant typically does not require execution within a specified time perio......
  • U.S. v. Ford
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 11, 1977
    ...invalid. United States v. Cobb, 432 F.2d 716, 719 (4th Cir. 1970). Cf. Spinelli v. United States, supra note 59; United States v. Roberts, 333 F.Supp. 786 (E.D.Tenn.1971), quoting Durham v. United States, 403 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1968).74 See United States v. Hill, supra note 64; United State......
  • State v. Bonaparte
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • March 21, 1983
    ...for probable cause to arrest because it is a statement of intent to commit a crime in the future. He relies on United States v. Roberts, 333 F.Supp. 786 (E.D.Tenn.1971) where the court stated: "A search warrant will not issue upon an affidavit reciting only the anticipation of a future offe......

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