Opinion ID: 479235
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Mercedes

Text: 135 A magistrate in the Southern District of Ohio issued a warrant on December 1, 1978 for the search of defendant's Mercedes. Defendant moved to suppress evidence derived from that search, challenging the validity of the warrant. 136 Some of the information used to obtain the Ohio warrant came from the second search of the Impala. We have already disposed of the claim that that warrant was invalid. 137 Defendant also argues that the facts before the Ohio magistrate could not support a determination of probable cause. 138 ATF Agent Donovan's affidavit was before the magistrate. Summarizing, it showed: 139 Defendant received Tovex in 1975. Eight bombing incidents occurred September 1 through 6, 1978. Each bomb was comprised of a Mark Time timer, a Ray-O-Vac Sportsman dry cell battery, an electric blasting cap, and DuPont Tovex. Two of them contained lead balls consistent with .445 caliber lead balls. On September 5, Andy Jones observed in defendant's Mercedes a Ray-O-Vac battery, a box of .445 caliber lead balls and a DuPont explosive information pamphlet. Defendant purchased a Chevrolet [Impala] in Dayton, Ohio September 13, 1978. He left the Mercedes parked in Dayton until he was asked to move it. It was brought to a body shop in Miamisburg for work. It remained at the shop on December 1. On September 21, a search of the Impala had produced three boxes of .445 lead balls, four Mark Time timers, altered to operate the same way as those used in the bombings, as well as positive traces of the explosive material Tovex which were recovered by means of swabbing and sweeping, with the residue being identified by means of laboratory analysis. A chemist advised on November 29 that traces of DuPont Tovex could still be found in a vehicle that had contained Tovex during the first week of September, 1978. 140 We think the magistrate could reasonably determine from the facts in the affidavit that the Mercedes probably had contained bomb components in early September which were moved to the Impala about September 13; that it probably had contained Tovex; and that traces would remain on December 1. 141 Defendant also claims the affiant intentionally misrepresented that an Ohio car dealer had asserted that defendant purchased the Impala September 13, 1978 under the name of Eaton. It is true that at the first trial in 1980 the dealer identified an individual other than defendant as the purchaser. Before the December 1, 1978 affidavit, however, he had identified defendant's photograph as a picture of the purchaser. The purchaser had used the name of Eaton. Thus the statement in the affidavit was not an intentional misrepresentation. 142 As argued on appeal by defendant, the affidavit did not disclose that some of the information ascribed to Andy Jones had been elicited while Jones was under hypnosis. Although this fact is relevant at trial to the credibility of Jones' testimony, and arguably could have a bearing on the reliability of information obtained from Jones, the omission did not amount, in our opinion, to a false statement. Moreover, this point was not presented to the district court.