Opinion ID: 340805
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sylvester's Appeal.

Text: 16 Sylvester first contends that the telephone and body transmitter recordings were admitted into evidence in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court and this circuit have held that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the defendant's conversations with a government informant are recorded with the consent of the informant. See United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971) (plurality opinion); United States v. Kirk, 534 F.2d 1262 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rich, 518 F.2d 980 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. McMillan, 508 F.2d 101 (8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 916, 95 S.Ct. 1577, 43 L.Ed.2d 782 (1975). See also Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966). 17 Secondly, Sylvester argues that the affidavit in support of the search warrant of 8734 Clifton was insufficient to furnish probable cause for the warrant's issuance, because it merely alleged that Sylvester Jones was seen visiting the house and that such conduct was only innocent-seeming activity which the Supreme Court in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 414, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), held to be irrelevant to the determination of probable cause. We disagree. 18 The affidavit set forth the previous arrangement for Cannon's purchases of heroin from Sylvester and that upon all but one occasion Sylvester went to his house at 8734 Clifton before delivery of the heroin. This information was corroborated by the observations of federal agents and the telephone and body transmitter recordings. 19 The affidavit need only establish the probability of criminal activity and secreting of evidence on specific premises, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Smith, 462 F.2d 456, 460 (8th Cir. 1972) (original emphasis). See also United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 584, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). We find that the affidavit set forth sufficient reliable underlying facts for the issuing court to find that there was probable cause to believe that heroin was present in the house at 8734 Clifton. 20 Lastly Sylvester argues that Cannon's testimony concerning a previous heroin transaction with Sylvester, which was outside the scope of the indictment, was prejudicial. 21 On cross-examination Sylvester's counsel had attempted to portray Cannon as needing to finger somebody for his own self-preservation 1 and that he picked Sylvester Jones. On redirect the government attempted to show that it knew that Sylvester was Cannon's heroin source prior to Cannon's arrest. It was during this questioning that the previous heroin transaction was related. Viewing the testimony from this posture together with the convincing evidence of Sylvester's guilt, we conclude that the testimony did not unduly prejudice Sylvester's defense. 22