United States v. Edward White

464 F.2d 1037, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7970
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 10, 1972
Docket72-1432
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 464 F.2d 1037 (United States v. Edward White) 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
United States v. Edward White, 464 F.2d 1037, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7970 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Edward White appeals from convictions on three counts of an indictment charging unlawful purchase, possession, transportation and concealment of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 and 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 4704(a) and 4724(e). Concluding that the Trial Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, we affirm.

On February 5, 1971 Agent Thomas J. Baekes of the United States Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs was advised by a confidential informant that the defendant would be delivering heroin at approximately 11 p. m. to an individual named Cleveland Green, who would be driving a light blue 1960 De Soto sedan, license number 223B907. The informant, whose reliability had been repeatedly demonstrated on previous occasions, also *1038 provided a general physical description of Green and the approximate geographical area in which the delivery was to take place. As a result of surveillance activities late that night Backes observed the defendant stop his automobile, honk the horn several times and motion toward another car matching the informant’s description and containing an individual resembling Green. The officers immediately closed in and forcibly removed the defendant from his vehicle, at which time a package of heroin fell out.

On the basis of this encapsulated version of facts that are in all material respects undisputed, we hold that there was probable cause for a search of the defendant’s automobile and that the motion to suppress was therefore properly denied. Draper v. United States, 1959, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327; United States v. Acosta, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 627.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
464 F.2d 1037, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-edward-white-ca5-1972.