Document: 376 U.S. 528 84 S.Ct. 825 11 L.Ed.2d 887 Samuel Joseph RUGENDORF, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 223. Argued Feb. 27, 1964. Decided March 30, Rehearing Denied May 18, See 377 940, 1330. Julius Lucius Echeles, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. David C. Acheson, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Following a trial by jury, petitioner was convicted violating 18 U.S.C. § 23151 knowingly receiving, concealing and storing 81 stolen fur pieces, pieces having been transported in interstate commerce value exceeding $5,000. The Court Appeals sustained conviction despite petitioner's objections that evidence not sufficient to support verdict; garments should have excluded from because they were seized on authority search warrant supported deficient affidavit; names certain confidential informants referred affidavit disclosed. 316 F.2d 589. We granted certiorari, 375 812, 61, 47, affirm judgment. I. 2 under attack issued United States Commissioner strengthof an dated 22, 1962, signed Marlin Moore, Special Agent Federal Bureau Investigation. stated Moore had reason believe approximately 80 stoles jackets, taken burglary Mountain Brook, Alabama, w rth about $40,000, concealed basement single family residence at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue Chicago. 3 this allegation with statements L. Dean Paarmann, Birmingham, Office FBI, informed February 10, 82 mink, otter, beaver jackets (but no full-length coats), worth $42,044, 16, informant who furnished reliable information past told during previous week he saw 75 otter coats) home Rugendorf Avenue, labels removed furs stolen. 4 further following statements: FBI McCormick advised affiant whom found be Frank Schweihs others, committed Alabama robbery; or 1, James Kelleher, Chicago police officer, said 'that FRANK SCHWEIHS RUGGENDORF (sic) BROTHERS MEAT MARKET, managed SAMUEL * *; further, McCORMICK another has Investigation LEO fence SCHWEIHS; RUGGENDORF'S brother associated meat business his brother.' 5 also Agent, J. Oitzinger, supplied Oitzinger Schweihs, Tony Panzica Mike Condic accomplished burglars disposed proceeds their burglaries through Leo Rugendorf. 6 Finally, alleged that, upon checking informant's description seen only reported six months involving one occurring Alabama. 7 Pursuant based affidavit, made residence. Fifty-nine these Brook other Shreveport, Louisiana. Prior trial, court heard testimony motion, Rule 41(e) Rules Criminal Procedure,2 suppress use as evidence. denied motion insofar it challenged legal sufficiency but reserved ruling truthfulness affidavit. During hearing held aspect denied. Also require Government disclose II. 8 Petitioner attacks validity warrant. This never passed directly extent which may permit such examination when is valid its face allegatons underlying establish 'probable cause'; however, ass ming, purpose decision, made, we are here valid. contends probable cause did exist relevant recitations However, detailed furs, including number type, closely resembled Paarmann's checked report records recent basement. In addition, brothers professional burglars. Although informations gave latter added, incorrectly, business,3 there direct fence, nothing shown prove untrue. factual inaccuracies depended destroy cause—i.e., allegations manager Brothers Meat Market business—were peripheral relevancy showing cause, and, being within personal knowledge affiant, go integrity 9 substantial basis conclude probably No more required. As Jones v. States, 362 257, 271, 725, 736, 697 (1960): 10 'We hearsay cannot say so little accepting acted improperly. He might insufficient withheld But him narcotics present apartment, sufficient.' withholding identities ground suppression Jones, supra, 'as alone does render insufficient, need required produced long crediting hearsay.' 272, 697. Petitioner's challenges veracity two inaccurate facts mentioned above. Since erroneous those affiant,4 fail show bad faith any misrepresentations securing III. 12 asserts entitled name informer seeing order defend himself merits. claim properly raised nor there, accordingly, must here. On occasions—once prior trial—petitioner urged contending 'factual errors' supporting It solely motion—not merits—that requested all informants' names. clear new trial: 13 '9. erred overruling defendant's government reveal informers necessary constitutional rights defendant pursuing evidence.' (Emphasis added.) 14 relied entirely suppression, which, if successful, would ended case. Failing this, asserted, first time, reply brief vital both defense knew whether 'participated persons than defendant' placing Apparently attempt bring case Roviaro 353 53, 77 623, 639 (1957), where played prominent part, sole participant accused, very offense convicted. even intimation situation necessity disclosure depends 'the particular circumstances each case, taking into consideration crime charged, possible defenses, significance informer's testimony, factors.' 62, 629, 639. develop criteria reference merits contrary, careful whole record shows informers' Having failed necessitating merits, defense. All demands identification hearings related motion.5 Never counsel indicate how could help innocence. 15 Nor do refusing exact date preceding 16 difficult e useful defense, since crucial indictment 22 indication events date. theory can find out date, able wife away time thereby creating inference someone else let know furs. material petitioner, major portion nearly every day period question. IV. evidence, undisputed home. hanging closet along piece admittedly owned Mrs. placed without while vacationing Florida neither looked after return until officers executed 22. Leo, sister, son neighbor keys house. Both pointed guilty party, relatives called witnesses. neighbor, testify, putting permitting person key. 17 early 1896 dealt situations. Wilson 162 613, 895, 40 L.Ed. 1090, Chief Fuller unanimous '(p)ossession fruits crime, recently commission, justifies possession possession, though prima facie guilt, controlling weight, unless explained accounted some way consistent innocence.' 619, 898, 1090. Here, stipulated 59 store 1962. They opening off regularly used recreation room. same Rugendorf's piece. Rugendorf, brother, known receiver goods Rugendorfs Florida. testified borrowed key before went Florida, yet returned it. rebuttal agent soon respects conflicted agents. jury simply explanation wife. jury's credulity stretched too far; or, perhaps failure call kinsmen, given home, appeared strange, especially so, testify event stipulation presence insufficient. Affirmed. 19 DOUGLAS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BRENNAN GOLDBERG concur, dissenting. 20 Just presentation prosecution witness warrant: 21 'Mr. Echeles: (353 639), cited our Seventh Circuit proposition, states informants, proper attacking warrant, then interest justice defendant. give it, Roviaro, law. 'Let me demonstrate necessary.' 23 Counsel argue why essential suppress. Then shifted stating: 24 'I suggest takes stand will Sam possibly falsity, I pretty good Government, ought want hide witness, much make Government. (Italics 25 'In event, your Honor, rely Pearce, 275 F.2d, Circuit. (77 639). And Giordenello 357 480, (78 1245, 1503), procedure am trying get here, Honor.' 26 impossible wholly quash true Pearce involved motions. not. Rather presented issue presents, viz., 'informer's privilege,' U.S., 59, S.Ct., 627, 639, interests accused. 27 prosecutor objected, saying killed.' 28 judge started. request repeated, my defendant, Whatever defect, any, appear time. For now plainly addressing Once again 29 obvious requests challenge guilt innocence—viz., knowing goods. considered Appeals,* 589, 592; same. 30 vacation between 4, Before left Leo—an admitted 'fence' goods—came house see him: 31 'Leo asked going look mail, clean sidewalks everything Jerry open morning got down later watch mail. Accordingly, keys. 32 'From day, 17, (the trial) talked Leo; k y.' 33 absence. His son, criminal, personally pertinency inquiry becomes obvious. 34 Speaking 639: 'The privilege furtherance protection public effective law enforcement. recognizes obligation citizens communicate commission crimes lawenforcement officials preserving anonymity, encourages them perform obligation.' 35 times way. put exceptions words: 'Where identity, contents communication, helpful fair determination situations withholds information, dismiss action.' Id., 60—61, 628, 36 imagine clearer application exception. 37 Solicitor General seeks avoid conclusion stole reached basement, 'this necessarily cast light knowledge.' argues highly conjectural materially illuminate question knowledge. have, proof implicating discovery Four hands outsiders, criminal trafficking goods; absence remained there. Who was, what motivations relations were, connections articles—these questions heart would, therefore, exercise sound discretion informant. Unless allow amount leeway, rest uneasy thought helping send innocent man prison. 38 up because, due respect, Baron Parke approach examining record, motions taken; concludes talismanic words made. attitude belongs ancient regime, administer 52(b) (see Silber 370 717, 1287, 798), provides: 'Plain errors defects affecting noticed although brought attention court.' Our 40(1)(d)(2) effect. Enough squarely Appeals. assumed arguendo point raised, few cases applying appeared, least years. 2315: 'Whoever receives, conceals, stores, barters, sells, disposes goods, wares, merchandise, securities, money $5,000 more, pledges accepts security loan $500 moving as, part of, constitute foreign commerce, stolen, unlawfully converted, 'Shall fined $10,000 imprisoned ten years, both.' Procedure: 'Motion Return Property Suppress Evidence. A aggrieved unlawful seizure move district property anything obtained (4) believing existence grounds *.' fact, terminated association 1952. Police Officer Kelleher business. inform McCormick. hospital operation deposition sought postponement enable present. Cir., 318; 78 1503; said: 'That is, Giordinella right (on suppression). Pierce Roviera state advance demand petition supplied.) second offered introducing arguing 'Here says, says: 'When demonstrated rights, test affidavit,' him.' Clearly reliance purposes, cited, misplaced. majority 'was here.' Ante, 534. excerpts reproduced above amply rebut contention relates trial. expressly remaining error refusal informer. relies 639.' 592. already noted, involve does. One requesting citing obviously seeking rule applicable.

Category: 0