United States v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 06 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 15020. |
| Citation | 90 F. Supp. 718 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ROBERTS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Otto T. Ault, U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., James M. Meek, Asst. U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.
John H. Doughty (of Hodges & Doughty), Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.
Presently the case is before the Court on motion to suppress evidence obtained by search of an automobile without a search warrant. Defendant is under indictment on the two counts of possessing and concealing tax-unpaid whiskey.
On or about April 8, 1950, Herman O. Bomar, Jr., an agent of the Alcohol Tax Unit, received at his home a telephone call from an informer, who advised him that a person, whose name the informer did not give, would make a delivery of whiskey at the house of Mattie Wright and that he believed the whiskey was then on the way there. This call occurred about 1:30 or 1:45 o'clock in the afternoon. Bomar immediately telephoned another agent of the Alcohol Tax Unit, who came by in an automobile within a few minutes, and within thirty minutes from the time of the first telephone call the two officers were in the vicinity of the Wright place.
While they waited there, a city policeman came to the Wright place in answer to a disturbance call. Bomar, who testified that he supposed the police officer had received the same information he had received as to the whiskey delivery, got out of his automobile and conferred with the officer. He was informed by this officer that the latter had information from an informer that bootleg whiskey was being delivered at the Wright place every day, and that the delivery was being made at exactly 2:30 p. m., a time when a shift in police patrols was being made. The police officer also advised Bomar that the person who made the daily delivery was the defendant Roberts.
Bomar and the other agent, who had been seen by persons within the Wright place, continued to watch the house and the adjacent streets. At exactly 2:30 p. m. the defendant appeared in a Ford coupe. He stopped, or slowed almost to a stop, in front of the Wright place, whereupon a man rushed from the house to the car, spoke hurriedly to defendant and waved him on. Defendant spun his rear wheels into a hurried take-off, and Bomar and his companion gave pursuit. A chase took place, extending through the city of Knoxville and into the country, a distance of twenty to thirty miles, with a speed at times that neared one hundred miles per hour, and ending when the Bomar car crashed into that of defendant.
Bomar's first informant had told him that a person was going to deliver three gallons of whiskey in one-half gallon jars. He did not describe the person or the automobile in which delivery was to be made, but he called from the south side of the river, the side on which defendant worked in a garage. Bomar had known defendant by sight for about a year and by reputation for three or four years. He knew that defendant had the reputation of being a bootlegger. He was informed by the city police officer that Mattie Wright's place was a bootlegging house and that it was defendant who serviced the place. The police officer testified that he told Bomar of his information as to defendant's daily visits to deliver whiskey, but he could not recall telling Bomar of having had information that a delivery would be made by defendant on that particular day. Bomar testified that the officer said there would be such a delivery.
Defendant testified that he made the stop at the Wright place to inquire whether his brother was there; that he was on his way to another part of the city to pick up a three-gallon keg; that he had no intention of delivering whiskey to Mattie Wright's place, nor any intention of selling what he had in his car, and that he and some other persons were going on a fishing trip. He also testified that he had told no one that he was going to deliver whiskey, the inference to be drawn therefrom, presumably, being that Bomar could not have been informed that he was going to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chance
...The defendant complains of the admission of the hearsay testimony of the detective as to the anonymous tip. In United States v. Roberts, 90 F.Supp. 718 (E.D.Tenn.N.D.1950), the specific issue of hearsay was dealt with. The court received hearsay testimony on the issue of probable cause and ......
-
Johnson v. State
...not render the search of an autombile illegal.' Jenkins v. State, 116 Tex.Cr. 374, 32 S.W.2d 848 (1930). See also, United States v. Roberts, D.C., 90 F.Supp. 718 (1950). Therefore, the relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reas......
-
Selsor v. State, F--76--578
...not render the search of an automobile illegal.' Jenkins v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 374, 32 S.W.2d 848 (1930). See also, United States v. Roberts, D.C., 90 F.Supp. 718 (1950). Therefore, the relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was r......
-
Dodson v. State
...not render the search of an automobile illegal.' Jenkins v. State, 116 Tex.Cr. 374, 32 S.W.2d 848 (1930). See also, United States v. Roberts, D.C., 90 F.Supp. 718 (1950). Therefore, the relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was rea......