Ophelia Johnson v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Ophelia Johnson v. United States

328 F.2d 883

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 1964

Docket20621

StatusPublished

This text of 328 F.2d 883 (Ophelia Johnson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ophelia Johnson v. United States, 328 F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of possessing distilled spirits having no stamps affixed thereto in violation of Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604(a) (1), after having waived jury trial.

She was arrested after agents chased the car which she was driving through a part of downtown Jacksonville at high rates of speed with the siren on the agent’s car in operation. The whiskey in question was in her car at the time. The agents followed her car from a house which they had been informed several days earlier was being used for storing whiskey. They had it under surveillance from a nearby house on two previous nights and had seen the car in question back into the garage on two occasions, without lights, and then depart after a few minutes in the garage, turning the lights on after getting into the street. The officers, based on their experience, believed the premises were being used, in their language, as a whiskey stash house. The next night they followed appellant for several blocks when the car left the house after a similar modus operandi, and the flight took place upon appellant discovering that she was being-followed.

*884 There was probable cause for the arrest without a warrant. Fla.Stat., Section 901.15(3), F.S.A.; United States v. Di Re, 1943, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210; and Carroll v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543. And the activity of the informer was unnecessary either to sustaining that probable cause, or to appellant’s defense, and thus there was no error in failing to require disclosure of the name of the informer. Scher v. United States, 1938, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151; and Roviaro v. United States, 1957, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639.

The claim that evidence with relation to other law violations was admitted, and that the evidence was insufficient are equally without merit. Teate v. United States, 5 Cir. 1961, 297 F.2d 120.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of possessing distilled spirits having no stamps affixed thereto in violation of Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604(a) (1), after having waived jury trial.

She was arrested after agents chased the car which she was driving through a part of downtown Jacksonville at high rates of speed with the siren on the agent’s car in operation. The whiskey in question was in her car at the time. The agents followed her car from a house which they had been informed several days earlier was being used for storing whiskey. They had it under surveillance from a nearby house on two previous nights and had seen the car in question back into the garage on two occasions, without lights, and then depart after a few minutes in the garage, turning the lights on after getting into the street. The officers, based on their experience, believed the premises were being used, in their language, as a whiskey stash house. The next night they followed appellant for several blocks when the car left the house after a similar modus operandi, and the flight took place upon appellant discovering that she was being-followed.

*884 There was probable cause for the arrest without a warrant. Fla.Stat., Section 901.15(3), F.S.A.; United States v. Di Re, 1943, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210; and Carroll v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543. And the activity of the informer was unnecessary either to sustaining that probable cause, or to appellant’s defense, and thus there was no error in failing to require disclosure of the name of the informer. Scher v. United States, 1938, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151; and Roviaro v. United States, 1957, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639.

The claim that evidence with relation to other law violations was admitted, and that the evidence was insufficient are equally without merit. Teate v. United States, 5 Cir. 1961, 297 F.2d 120.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ophelia-johnson-v-united-states-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack