United States v. Woodson
| Decision Date | 15 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 14694.,14694. |
| Citation | 303 F.2d 49 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William T. WOODSON and John Gant, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert E. Lillard, Nashville, Tenn. (A. A. Birch, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., on the brief), for defendants-appellants.
Carrol D. Kilgore, Asst. U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn. (Kenneth Harwell, U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WEICK, Circuit Judge, and BOYD and THORNTON, District Judges.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the defendants-appellants on both counts of an information charging them, in the first count, with being persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers and liable for the tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and with wilfully failing and refusing to register with the Director of Internal Revenue; and charging them, in the second count, with accepting wagers and liable for the tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and for failure to pay a special occupational tax, all in violation of Sections 4401, 4411, 4412, 7203 and 7262 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C.1954) §§ 4401, 4411, 4412, 7203, 7262. In addition to the appellants, four other defendants were tried together on the same information and were also found guilty on both counts by a jury. A motion to suppress and return the evidence was filed on behalf of defendant Woodson before trial. The Trial Court reserved a ruling on this motion. At the end of the Government's proof a motion for judgment of acquittal was made as to all defendants. It was renewed at the conclusion of all of the testimony, and the Court reserved the ruling on the motion to await the verdict of the jury, subsequently denying the motion to suppress filed on behalf of Woodson, denying the motion for acquittal as to Woodson and Gant, and granting the same as to the four other defendants. On this appeal the defendants-appellants claim that the Trial Court committed error in not granting the motion to suppress the evidence — said motion being based upon the claim that the search warrant was issued solely upon information received from an unknown and unidentified informer. However, in addition to the information from the unknown informer to a known official of the Treasury Department1 there was information from the said informer describing the automobile driven by appellant Woodson and describing the activities of 20 to 25 individuals in visiting the said premises nightly:
(1) To check up on the day's business;
(2) To exchange money on business previously turned in;
(3) To return "hit tickets" for the day's business.
Based on this information four Special Agents of the Treasury Department conducted surveillances during the period of May 17-June 1, 1960. The combined supporting affidavits of these four agents indicated that over the period of the surveillances 11 different automobiles were seen at or near the premises: 4 belonged to persons who had held Federal Gaming Stamps; 2 belonged to persons who had been arrested for lottery violations; 3 were registered in the names of persons with the same residential addresses as people who had either held Federal Gaming Stamps or had been arrested on lottery charges; 1 was owned by a person who had the reputation of being a "numbers" writer; and 1 had been observed on an apparent "numbers" route. In addition to the foregoing, two of the four agents included information in their respective affidavits that they were experienced in observing persons engaged in the operation of numbers lotteries and in investigating violations of the Federal Wagering Tax Laws. The activity in and about the suspected premises of persons known to the agents as gamblers and numbers operators (as disclosed in the agents' affidavits) furnished substantial and detailed corroboration of the information furnished to the Bureau of Internal Revenue at Nashville, Tennessee, by the unknown informer, and served to establish this information as trustworthy. When, in addition to this information, the supporting affidavits of each of the four Special Agents disclosed their personal observations and investigations during a two-week surveillance period "there was put before the Commissioner"2 sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
...its source. See United States v. Irby, 304 F.2d 280 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 830, 83 S.Ct. 39, 9 L.Ed.2d 67; United States v. Woodson, 303 F.2d 49 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Gant v. United States, 373 U.S. 941, 83 S.Ct. 1548, 10 L.Ed.2d 696; Katz v. Peyton, 334 F.2d 77 (4th......
-
United States v. Gosser
...of Rule 41(c), Rules of Criminal Procedure, which require that the warrant be served in the daytime. This Court held in United States v. Woodson, 303 F.2d 49, 51-52, cert. denied, Gant v. United States, 373 U.S. 941, 83 S.Ct. 1548, 10 L.Ed.2d 696, "Daytime does not in law or by common under......
-
People v. Fusco
...Fino, 14 N.Y.2d 160, 163, 250 N.Y.S.2d 47, 50, 199 N.E.2d 151, 153, citing Smith v. State, 191 Md. 329, 62 A.2d 287; and United States v. Woodson, 6 Cir., 303 F.2d 49. Cf. People v. Richardson, supra. Indeed, standing alone and divorced from the tip, the information gathered by the police d......
-
United States v. Tucker
...1962); United States v. Irby, 304 F.2d 280 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 830, 83 S.Ct. 39, 9 L.Ed. 2d 67 (1962); United States v. Woodson, 303 F.2d 49 (6 Cir. 1962); United States v. Williams, 219 F.Supp. 666 (S.D.N.Y. 1963), aff'd, 336 F.2d 183 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 857, 85 S......