TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Howard Eugene Eaton v. United States

Howard Eugene EATON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Eaton v. United States, 409 F.2d 1355 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 28, 1969
Docket
No. 26354
Judges
Gewin, McGOWAN, Morgan, Per Curiam
Citations
409 F.2d 13551969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12629

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This appeal from a conviction for counterfeiting ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 471 , 472) raises only the issue of the trial court’s *1356 denial after an evidentiary hearing, of a motion to suppress evidence. The evidence in question consisted of a large stock of counterfeiting supplies, and was seized in a search of appellant’s commercial printing establishment pursuant to the authority of a warrant. The affidavit by a Secret Service agent underlying the warrant recited that (1) counterfeit $10 and $20 bills had been passed in Atlanta on May 4, 1967, (2) a reliable informant had stated that appellant was engaged in printing counterfeit bills at the Peachtree Press, (3) an agent had observed appellant working at the Press on the evening of May 9, and (4) on the nights of May 10 and 11, the contents of the trash container in front of the Press were found to contain letters addressed to appellant, letterheads and other papers relating to the Peachtree Press, photographic negatives of $10 and $20 bills, and partially printed impressions of a $10 bill.

Appellant’s contention is that the affidavit is deficient because of the allegedly inadequate reference to the informant. In support of this argument, much is sought to be made of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the mere reference to an informer’s tip was not regarded as sufficient to make otherwise innocent activities adequate support for the issuance of a warrant. But it was recognized in Spinelli that independent police investigation initiated by a tip may develop information which lends authenticity to the tip, see Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), or which is itself adequate to justify the issuance of the warrant. The observations and investigations conducted by the Secret Service agents in this case turned up information far more suggestive of criminality than was true in Spinelli .

Thus, whether the affidavit is appraised with or without the giving of any weight to the recital of the tip, it sets forth facts fully justifying the issuance of the warrant.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1969: 11975: 119692026peak 1969 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Angel Alfredo Vigo413 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1969)
  2. Louis Polanco v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections507 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1975)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) 5,225
Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959) 2,656

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list