Siler v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Siler v. United States

215 A.2d 478, 1965 D.C. App. LEXIS 266

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 23, 1965

DocketNo. 3844

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.2d 478 (Siler v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Siler v. United States, 215 A.2d 478, 1965 D.C. App. LEXIS 266 (D.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINN, Associate Judge:

Appellant was arrested on a charge of narcotic vagrancy when police officers found him in an apartment containing narcotic paraphernalia. The officers had entered the apartment pursuant to a search warrant issued by the United States Commissioner on the basis of information supplied in an affidavit. The affidavit recited that “previously reliable” sources of information told the affiant (a detective on the Narcotics Squad of the Metropolitan Police) that appellant and others were selling narcotics out of a certain apartment on N Street, that the affiant had personally observed that a narcotics purchase took place in the building in question, and that the suspects had been involved with narcotics in the past.

Appellant contends that this affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause under the Supreme Court’s decision in Aquilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). Specifically, he alleges that the affidavit did not disclose any “underlying circumstances” for the affiant’s belief in the credibility or reliability of the informants. A reading of the affidavit, however, convinces us that it contained ample information on the subject, setting forth not only the fact that the informants had proved reliable in the past but also the personal observations of the officer and his knowledge that the suspects had committed similar offenses previously. In the recent case of Jones v. United States, D.C.Cir., 353 F.2d 908 (decided November 29, 1965), the United States Court of Appeals upheld the sufficiency of an affidavit which was substantially the same as the one before us. Perry v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 336 F.2d 748 (1964), cited by appellant, is not authority for the propo[479]*479sition that such an affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause. There the court merely ruled that counsel’s inquiry into the “underlying circumstances” should not be restricted at trial.

Affirmed.

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

QUINN, Associate Judge:

Appellant was arrested on a charge of narcotic vagrancy when police officers found him in an apartment containing narcotic paraphernalia. The officers had entered the apartment pursuant to a search warrant issued by the United States Commissioner on the basis of information supplied in an affidavit. The affidavit recited that “previously reliable” sources of information told the affiant (a detective on the Narcotics Squad of the Metropolitan Police) that appellant and others were selling narcotics out of a certain apartment on N Street, that the affiant had personally observed that a narcotics purchase took place in the building in question, and that the suspects had been involved with narcotics in the past.

Appellant contends that this affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause under the Supreme Court’s decision in Aquilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). Specifically, he alleges that the affidavit did not disclose any “underlying circumstances” for the affiant’s belief in the credibility or reliability of the informants. A reading of the affidavit, however, convinces us that it contained ample information on the subject, setting forth not only the fact that the informants had proved reliable in the past but also the personal observations of the officer and his knowledge that the suspects had committed similar offenses previously. In the recent case of Jones v. United States, D.C.Cir., 353 F.2d 908 (decided November 29, 1965), the United States Court of Appeals upheld the sufficiency of an affidavit which was substantially the same as the one before us. Perry v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 336 F.2d 748 (1964), cited by appellant, is not authority for the propo[479]*479sition that such an affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause. There the court merely ruled that counsel’s inquiry into the “underlying circumstances” should not be restricted at trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.2d 478, 1965 D.C. App. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siler-v-united-states-dc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack