United States v. Peter Marcello

570 F.2d 324, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12720
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 8, 1978
Docket77-1165
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 570 F.2d 324 (United States v. Peter Marcello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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. Peter Marcello, 570 F.2d 324, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12720 (10th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

The only issue in this appeal is whether an affidavit given by an F.B.I. agent to a United States Magistrate was legally sufficient to support the Magistrate’s issuance of a search warrant. The trial court ruled that the affidavit was insufficient, and granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the use at trial of the fruits of the search. The United States now appeals the ruling of the trial court granting the motion to suppress under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. Our study of the matter leads us to conclude that the trial court erred and we therefore reverse.

Peter Marcello, the defendant, was charged with the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. From the record before us it appears that Marcello runs a disposal service in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, and in connection therewith leases the Sandoval County, New Mexico dump. The charge against Marcello was that he had transported a stolen garbage truck from New York to New Mexico. The search warrant issued by the Magistrate authorized the search of the Sandoval County dump for garbage disposal equipment which was believed to be buried on the premises. The search disclosed certain items, namely serial plates from axles of a vehicle which the defendant claimed had been transported by him to New York, and then returned to New Mexico.

The United States Magistrate issued the search warrant on the basis of an affidavit made by an F.B.I. agent. The affidavit is set forth as an appendix.

The investigation of this matter started with an anonymous phone call to the F.B.I. in New York. A second anonymous phone call to the New Mexico State Police was to the effect that Marcello was then in New York and within the next few days would arrive in New Mexico driving a stolen garbage truck. A day or so after this second anonymous tip the defendant was in fact stopped by the New Mexico State Police driving what was later determined to be a stolen garbage truck. Marcello, however, was not arrested at that time, nor was the garbage truck impounded by the police. The following day there were two anonymous phone calls to the F.B.I. in Albuquerque advising the F.B.I. that during the early morning hours of that same day Marcello had buried the stolen garbage truck, together with some equipment in the dump which Marcello had under lease. As indicated, the warrant was issued solely on the basis of the affidavit of the F.B.I. agent, and the affidavit was in our view legally sufficient to warrant the issuance of the search warrant.

It is contended that the affidavit in the instant case does not meet the requirements of Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969) and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). It is true that the present affidavit did not disclose how the informants, assuming there was more than one person calling in these various tips, had acquired their information. Nor did the affidavit indicate that the tipster, or tipsters, had a track record of reliability. However, in our view the affidavit does contain a sufficient recital of investigative efforts by the F.B.I. and the local New Mexico police which in turn indicated that the information given the authorities was reliable. For example, the anonymous caller advised the New Mexico police that on the following day Marcello would arrive in New Mexico driving a stolen garbage truck. And on the following day Marcello was indeed stopped by New Mexico police driving a garbage truck, which subsequent investigation showed had been recently stolen in New York. All of this, and more, was contained in the affidavit of the F.B.I. agent. The Fourth Amendment only requires that facts set forth in an underlying affidavit be sufficient to allow a neutral magistrate to reasonably conclude that probable cause for a search exists. Sup *326 porting affidavits should be tested in a common sense and realistic manner, without the use of a magnifying glass. The affidavit in the instant case is amply sufficient to support the issuance of a warrant. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); United States v. Holliday, 474 F.2d 320 (10th Cir. 1973); and United States v. Berry, 423 F.2d 142 (10th Cir. 1970).

Altogether, there were four - anonymous phone calls, each supplying information that Marcello was involved in the interstate transportation of a stolen garbage truck from New York to New Mexico. Defense counsel would make much out of the fact that there is nothing in the affidavit to indicate that these four calls were made by only one person. Such is not fatal. It is a bit difficult for us to believe that four different persons were supplying information. It would appear more reasonable that one person was supplying the information. Be that as it may, the affidavit in the instant case, when read in its entirety, contains sufficient information to enable the issuing magistrate to find probable cause to search the dump leased by the defendant. The affidavit need only establish probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Baca, 480 F.2d 199 (10th Cir. 1973) and Leeper v. United States, 446 F.2d 281 (10th Cir. 1971).

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with direction that the trial court deny Marcello’s motion to suppress.

APPENDIX

The undersigned being duly sworn deposes and says:

That he has reason to believe that on the premises known as the Sandoval County, New Mexico, Dump, located in an area exactly two and one-half miles north of A-l Disposal Service, Inc., Sandoval County, Rio Rancho, New Mexico, on Rio Rancho Drive, is a graded dirt road running directly west of Rio Rancho Drive, two miles in distance, to a chain-link fence area with a sign “Dump,” an area of approximately three acres enclosed by a chain-link fence where there is now being concealed certain property, namely a bulldozer and garbage disposal equipment, such as trucks, both dump type and those attached with trash compactor units, allegedly stolen or fraudulently converted in the State of New York and transported to the State of New Mexico for use in A-l Disposal Service, Inc., Rio Rancho, New Mexico, which is owned by PETER MARCELLO, and the Sandoval County, New Mexico, Dump which is leased by PETER MARCELLO, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2312, and subject to seizure.

Before ROBERT W. MC COY, United States Magistrate, Albuquerque, New Mexico, JAMES E. DOYLE, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, being duly sworn states:

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

Related

United States v. Ruben Rodriguez-Pando
841 F.2d 1014 (Tenth Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Stevens
543 F. Supp. 929 (N.D. Illinois, 1982)
United States v. Bethea
505 F. Supp. 698 (E.D. New York, 1980)
United States v. James Dow Vandivere
579 F.2d 1240 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
570 F.2d 324, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-peter-marcello-ca10-1978.