Isaac J. Tindle v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Isaac J. Tindle v. United States

325 F.2d 223, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 27, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4030

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 1963

Docket17806_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 325 F.2d 223 (Isaac J. Tindle v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Isaac J. Tindle v. United States, 325 F.2d 223, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 27, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4030 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of robbery in violation of 22 D.C.Code § 2901. On this appeal he contends that his arrest, which was without a warrant, was unlawful in that it was not supported by probable cause. 1 Because of this he further contends that certain identifying evidence admitted at his trial should have been suppressed on his motion prior to trial, and excluded during the trial. If, however, his arrest was lawful the contention fails; and we think it was lawful. The argument to the contrary is that the existence of probable cause for appellant’s arrest depended in part upon information obtained from another person as a result of the unlawful arrest of this other person. It is conceded, however, that this information, considered with other information possessed by the officer who arrested appellant, constituted probable cause for the latter’s arrest. 2

In any event the fact that the information on the basis of which appellant was arrested stemmed in part from the arrest of another person which we may assume arguendo was unlawful, did not invalidate appellant’s conviction. As is conceded, the total information possessed by the officer when he arrested appellant gave him probable cause to do so, and the connection between appellant’s conviction and the information stemming from the allegedly illegal arrest of the other person was so attenuated as to dissipate any possible taint. Cf. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939).

Affirmed.

1

. “A police officer may arrest for a felony without a warrant, if he has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the arrested person committed it.” Wrightson v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 392, 222 F.2d 556, 558 (1955).

2

. None of the information referred to was used as evidence at appellant’s trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of robbery in violation of 22 D.C.Code § 2901. On this appeal he contends that his arrest, which was without a warrant, was unlawful in that it was not supported by probable cause. 1 Because of this he further contends that certain identifying evidence admitted at his trial should have been suppressed on his motion prior to trial, and excluded during the trial. If, however, his arrest was lawful the contention fails; and we think it was lawful. The argument to the contrary is that the existence of probable cause for appellant’s arrest depended in part upon information obtained from another person as a result of the unlawful arrest of this other person. It is conceded, however, that this information, considered with other information possessed by the officer who arrested appellant, constituted probable cause for the latter’s arrest. 2

In any event the fact that the information on the basis of which appellant was arrested stemmed in part from the arrest of another person which we may assume arguendo was unlawful, did not invalidate appellant’s conviction. As is conceded, the total information possessed by the officer when he arrested appellant gave him probable cause to do so, and the connection between appellant’s conviction and the information stemming from the allegedly illegal arrest of the other person was so attenuated as to dissipate any possible taint. Cf. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939).

Affirmed.

1

. “A police officer may arrest for a felony without a warrant, if he has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the arrested person committed it.” Wrightson v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 392, 222 F.2d 556, 558 (1955).

2

. None of the information referred to was used as evidence at appellant’s trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F.2d 223, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 27, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 4030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaac-j-tindle-v-united-states-cadc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack