United States ex rel. Grano v. Anderson

446 F.2d 272
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJuly 9, 1971
DocketNo. 71-1102
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 446 F.2d 272 (United States ex rel. Grano v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States ex rel. Grano v. Anderson, 446 F.2d 272 (3d Cir. 1971).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus in the district court challenging the legality of his confinement by the State of Delaware pending the resolution of extradition proceedings instituted in Delaware by the State of Louisiana. This appeal resulted.

While appellant was incarcerated in Delaware, serving a sentence on an unrelated charge, the Governor of Louisiana demanded his extradition to stand trial on an information charging simple burglary. In June, 1969, appellant was released from custody in Delaware but was immediately rearrested on the Governor’s executive warrant. Thwarted in his attempt to obtain habeas relief in the Delaware state courts,1 appellant commenced his present action in the court below which denied relief on the ground that the original affidavit accompanying the Louisiana demand for extradition was sufficient to establish probable cause. United States ex rel. Grano v. Anderson, 318 F.Supp. 263 (D.Del.1970).

Probable cause in the context of arrest warrants depends on the presence of two criteria: (1) the warrant and supporting documents must justify a finding of probable cause to believe that the offense has been committed, and (2) the warrant and documents supporting it must demonstrate a sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause that the party named in the warrant committed the offense charged. See Spinelli v. United [274]*274States, 393 U.S. 410, 418, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969).

We agree with the district court that the original affidavit by police officers Mantieri and O’Neil which accompanied the extradition demand satisfied these criteria and thus justified a finding of probable cause. We have no difficulty in concluding that the first requirement was met by the averment that a burglary was committed when a safe, located in a building at 3321 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, was broken into.2 The second criterion was satisfied by the representation of affiant O’Neill, “Lieutenant and Technician for the Bureau of Identification, New Orleans Police Department,” that a fingerprint found on the metal box in the opened safe was “positively identified” by him as that of Frank Grano, by comparing the print with those taken of Grano by the Reno, Nevada, police department.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

Related

Opinion No. (1983)
Nebraska Attorney General Reports, 1983
People of State of Ill., Ex Rel. Smith v. Elrod
511 F. Supp. 559 (N.D. Illinois, 1981)
Michigan v. Doran
439 U.S. 282 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Wilbanks v. State
579 P.2d 132 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1978)
Jacobsen v. State
577 P.2d 24 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1978)
Montague v. Smedley
557 P.2d 774 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1976)
Thomas v. Levi
422 F. Supp. 1027 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1976)
Garrison v. Smith
413 F. Supp. 747 (N.D. Mississippi, 1976)
Commonwealth ex rel. Marshall v. Gedney
352 A.2d 528 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Brode v. Power
332 A.2d 376 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1974)
United States Ex Rel. Senk v. Brierley
381 F. Supp. 447 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1974)
United States v. Anderson
446 F.2d 272 (Third Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
446 F.2d 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-grano-v-anderson-ca3-1971.