United States v. Donald Everett

719 F.2d 1119, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15201
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedNovember 17, 1983
Docket82-3098
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 719 F.2d 1119 (United States v. Donald Everett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Donald Everett, 719 F.2d 1119, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15201 (11th Cir. 1983).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Donald Everett appeals from judgments of conviction on four counts of conspiracy to pass counterfeit currency, passing counterfeit currency, possessing counterfeit currency, and concealing counterfeit currency. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that Everett was arrested on probable cause.

The facts show that appellant and another individual, who were seated at the same table in a lounge, each passed $50.00 bills which were identified by a deputy sheriff to be counterfeit. Appellant argues that the arresting officers must have some additional evidence of intent in connection with the passing of the counterfeit money before they can make an arrest. While intent is an element of the crime which must be proved at trial, it is not necessary in order to establish probable cause to arrest. The passing of a counterfeit note coupled with an identification of the person who passed the note furnishes probable cause to arrest the individual identified as passing the note. United States v. Savage, 564 F.2d 728, 733 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Maryland, 479 F.2d 566, 569 (5th Cir.1973); accord United States v. Blum, 432 F.2d 250, 251-53 (9th Cir.1970); United States v. Ayers, 426 F.2d 524, 529-30 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 842, 91 S.Ct. 85, 27 L.Ed.2d 78 (1970); Dailey v. United States, 365 F.2d 640, 641 (10th Cir.1966); United States v. Masini, 358 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir.1966); United States v. Smith, 357 F.2d 318, 320 (6th Cir.1966).

Accordingly, we

AFFIRM.

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

Related

United States v. Torrieo Johnson
Eleventh Circuit, 2024
Timothy Davis, Sr. v. City of Apopka
78 F.4th 1326 (Eleventh Circuit, 2023)
Miller v. City of Hillview
W.D. Kentucky, 2023
Junkins v. Dejong
N.D. Alabama, 2022
United States v. Tyslen Baker
976 F.3d 636 (Sixth Circuit, 2020)
William Rivera v. Jorge Carvajal
Eleventh Circuit, 2019
Benoit v. City of Lake City
343 F. Supp. 3d 1219 (M.D. Florida, 2018)
Veronika Kollar v. Thad M. Rhodes
503 F. App'x 916 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Nunez-Garrido
829 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (S.D. Florida, 2011)
Rodis v. City and County Sf
Ninth Circuit, 2009
Rodis v. City & County of San Francisco
558 F.3d 964 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Quintana
594 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Florida, 2009)
Sosa v. Hames
581 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Florida, 2008)
Isaiah Jordan v. Tommy Mosley
487 F.3d 1350 (Eleventh Circuit, 2007)
Grant v. City of New York
500 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Shirley Dahl v. Jim Holley
312 F.3d 1228 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
F.C. v. State
742 So. 2d 200 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
719 F.2d 1119, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-donald-everett-ca11-1983.