United States v. Williams

• Decision Date: 22 February 1971
• Citation: 322 F. Supp. 1074
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Donald Thomas WILLIAMS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

322 F. Supp. 1074

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Donald Thomas WILLIAMS, Defendant.

No. _____.

United States District Court, N. D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

February 22, 1971.

Harold Karp, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty. N.D. of Ga., Robert E. Whitley, Asst. U.S. Atty. N.D. of Ga., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

ORDER

MOYE, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on a pre-indictment motion for return of seized property and suppression of evidence pursuant to Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The facts surrounding the seizure follow.

Donald Thomas Williams, a licensed dealer in firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, reported to local officials the theft of his automobile which contained certain firearms and records required to be kept by him pursuant to the statute. (See 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)). After determining the location of the stolen vehicle and its contents, local officials pursuant to a state search warrant, seized certain firearms and an attache case containing Williams's firearms records from an office building located in Cobb County, Georgia. This evidence was used in the prosecution of the car thieves, and the attache case and its contents were subsequently turned over by the local officials to Special Investigator Charles W. Hugueley of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, Internal Revenue Service. Agent Hugueley proceeded to Williams's premises and took with him the attache case containing the records. Upon arriving at the said premises, Hugueley identified himself to Williams, advised him of his constitutional rights, and stated to him his desire to inspect the firearms records Williams was required to maintain under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Williams explained the theft of his firearms and records and identified the attache case (in Hugueley's possession) as the one which contained all of his firearms records. Hugueley made several inquiries concerning Williams's records and his acquisition and disposition of firearms and inspected the firearms Williams had on hand on the premises. (Williams designated the areas in which his collection was lodged.)

Based on his inspection of Williams's records and inventory, Hugueley determined that a substantial number of firearms had not been registered in Williams's records as required by law and that there were other defects in Williams's record-keeping processes.

On the basis of his inspection and certain information obtained from two informers (discussed infra), Hugueley submitted an affidavit to an appropriate United States Commissioner for issuance of a search warrant to seize the firearms which had not been properly registered and Williams's firearms records. Williams moves to have the seized property returned and suppressed as evidence on the ground that the warrant was issued without probable cause.

Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is deemed to exist "where the facts and circumstances within the affiant's knowledge, and of which he has reasonable trustworthy information, are sufficient unto themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed." Berger v. State of New York, 388 U.S. 41, 55, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 1881, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967); United States v. Rich, 407 F.2d 934, 936 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 1775, 23 L.Ed.2d 239 (1969). As grounds to support a finding of probable cause in this case, the government relies upon admissions by Williams, information obtained through informers, and the inspection of Williams's inventory and records by Agent Hugueley. Williams challenges the informer's information as insufficient under the standards set out in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), in that the affidavit does not set forth the underlying circumstances upon which the informer's conclusions are based and does not present facts to show the credibility and reliability of the informer. Williams also attacks the inspection by Agent Hugueley, arguing that he, Williams, was not given an opportunity to determine if all of his records were in the...