United States v. David Perry, 380 F.2d 356 (2d Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. David Perry, 380 F.2d 356 (2d Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1970 · …furnished reliable and accurate information on approximately 20 occasions over the past four years at p. 357 ⚠ not in text
26 citation events across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. The Merchant Diamond Group, Inc. (ca2, 1977-11-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. The Merchant Diamond Group, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964): United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Volpe (2×)
D. Conn. · 1977 · confidence medium
On the contrary, it is clear that neither jurisdiction would invalidate the warrant without some showing of an affiant’s knowing misstatement. ” “Accord, United States ex rel DeRosa v. LaVallee, 406 F.2d 807, 808 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 854 , 90 S.Ct. 115 , 24 L.Ed.2d 103 (1969) (probable cause determined upon information furnished issuing magistrate unless materially false ‘to the knowledge of the affiant’); United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967) (probable cause established if facts alleged esta…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kahn v. Flood
2d Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
DeRosa v. LaVallee, 406 F.2d 807, 808 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 854 , 90 S.Ct. 115 , 24 L.Ed.2d 103 (1969) (probable cause determined upon information furnished issuing magistrate unless materially false "to the knowledge of the affiant"); United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967) (probable cause established if facts alleged establish illegality if true and affiant has reasonable grounds for believing them true; accuracy of informant's information "not relevant"). 11 The authorities cited by petitioners do not…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kahn v. Flood
2d Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
DeRosa v. LaVallee, 406 F.2d 807, 808 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 854 , 90 S.Ct. 115 , 24 L.Ed.2d 103 (1969) (probable cause determined upon information furnished issuing magistrate unless materially false “to the knowledge of the affiant”); United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967) (probable cause established if facts alleged establish illegality if true and affiant has reasonable grounds for believing them true; accuracy of informant’s information “not relevant”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Schuessler Watts, Jr.
D.C. Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
See, e. g., United States v. Ross, 424 F.2d 1016, 1018-19 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 819 , 91 S.Ct. 35 , 27 L.Ed.2d 46 (1970) (source known to be reliable because he “furnished correct information concerning” two thefts of motor vehicles which had been transported in interstate commerce); United States v. Vigo, 413 F.2d 691, 692 (5th Cir. 1969) (informant “has proven to be reliable in the past on several occasions in his utilization as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics”); United States v. Hood, 422 F.2d 737, 739 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 820 , 91 S.Ct. 3…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lebron v. United States Secretary of the Air Force
S.D.N.Y. · 1975 · confidence medium
United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir. 1967).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Manuel Gonzalez
2d Cir. · 1973 · confidence medium
In United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Baird
Colo. · 1973 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 357 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967); United States v. Ramos, 380 F.2d 717, 719 (2 Cir. 1967).” The ruling of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sultan
2d Cir. · 1972 · confidence medium
A recitation that an unnamed informant has previously supplied accurate information is sufficient to justify reliance on the informant’s story, United States v. Dunnings, supra, 425 F.2d at 839 ; United States v. Ramos, 380 F.2d 717 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967); United States v. Freeman, supra, 358 F.2d at 462 , but it is not necessary.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Samual Sultan
2d Cir. · 1972 · confidence medium
A recitation that an unnamed informant has previously supplied accurate information is sufficient to justify reliance on the informant's story, United States v. Dunnings, supra, 425 F.2d at 839 ; United States v. Ramos, 380 F.2d 717 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967); United States v. Freeman, supra, 358 F.2d at 462 , but it is not necessary.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Edward Dunnings (2×)
2d Cir. · 1970 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 357 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967); United States v. Ramos, 380 F.2d 717, 719 (2 Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Slapo
S.D.N.Y. · 1968 · confidence medium
See Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356, 358 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967).
discussed Cited "see" William Spinelli v. United States (2×)
8th Cir. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Ramos, 2d Cir., July 12, 1967, 380 F.2d 717 , and United States v. Perry, 2d Cir., July 12, 1967, 380 F.2d 356 , where the affidavit contained information comparable to that in United States v. Suarez, supra 10 Justice Goldberg, speaking in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 111 , 85 S.Ct. 741, 747 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965), stated: '* * * Observations of fellow officers of the Government engaged in a common investigation are plainly a reliable basis for a warrant applied for by one of their number. * * *'
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Vigo
S.D.N.Y. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Perry, 380 F.2d 356 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 943 , 88 S.Ct. 307 , 19 L.Ed.2d 299 (1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
David PERRY, Appellant
486, Docket 30620.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 6, 1967.
380 F.2d 356
Phylis Skloot Bamberger, New York City, (Anthony F. Marra, New York City, on the brief), for appellant., Douglas S. Liebhafsky, Asst U. S. Atty. (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, New York City, and Andrew M. Lawler, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Moore, Friendly, Anderson.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

David Perry appeals from a judgment of conviction of violating the federal narcotics laws, 21 U. S. C. Sections 173 and 174, after a trial before the Court sitting without a jury. The issues on this appeal all revolve around the sufficiency of the affidavit which formed the basis for the issuance of a search warrant for the Perry premises. We affirm the conviction.

The affidavit in question was made by Narcotics Agent Robert C. Manning. All of the pertinent information relating to the appellant and his sale and possession of heroin was stated by Agent Manning to have been obtained from an un-identifed informant. The information given by the informant, and set forth in the Manning affidavit, was most specific, in substance, being that on two occasions, one and three days before the date of the affidavit, the informant had seen large quantities of heroin in appellant’s apartment. The only corroboration of this information was Agent Manning’s further statement in the affidavit that “this source of information has given information to me on several previous occasions and on each occasion that information was correct by my own personal knowledge.” The affidavit also recited that during the hours 7:00 to 9:00 P.M., the time the informant had told Manning that appellant was selling heroin from his apartment, Manning[*358] himself had observed some thirty people enter the building and depart after staying only a few minutes. Judge Cannella rightly did not regard this as corroborative since Manning watched thirty people enter and leave a multi-tenant building, not Perry’s apartment, and none of the people were recognized as known addicts.

On a pre-trial motion to suppress the heroin seized from Perry’s apartment, Judge Cannella quite properly found that the affidavit was sufficient on its face to establish probable cause. The rule in this Circuit is that an affidavit containing detailed statements as to the commission of crime made of his own knowledge by an informant for whose reliability the affiant vouches on the basis of experience is sufficient. United States v. Freeman, 358 F.2d 459 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 882, 87 S.Ct. 168,17 L.Ed.2d 109 (1966); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). This rule is especially appropriate where, as here, the affiant was able to swear on the basis of his personal knowledge to the reliability of the informant. However, we believe it would be better practice if affidavits also contained statements of the length of time the agent had known and dealt with the informant and the approximate number of times information had been received from the informant, see United States v. Freeman, supra, 358 F.2d at 463. This is not a case like U. S. ex rel. Rogers v. Warden of Attica State Prison, 381 F.2d 209 (2 Cir. 1967), where the affidavit omitted recitation of the “ ‘underlying circumstances’ from which the informant concluded that narcotics were being sold” for those facts appear in detail.

At trial, appellant renewed his motion to suppress and, further, demanded an evidentiary hearing at which the informant could be questioned “as to the time and circumstances that he allegedly saw these packages in this apartment” (Record, page 56). This request was properly denied because the accuracy of the information provided by the informant is not relevant. Probable cause is established if the facts alleged by the informant, if true, establish illegality and the affiant-agent has reasonable grounds for believing in the truth of the allegations.

On this appeal appellant has expanded his request for a hearing to include an opportunity to attack the statements of previous reliability of the informant. As this demand was not timely raised before the District Judge, it may not be considered here. United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276 (2 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907, 86 S.Ct. 887, 15 L.Ed.2d 663 (1966).

Affirmed.