United States v. Joseph Bertram Fisher, 440 F.2d 654 (4th Cir. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Joseph Bertram Fisher, 440 F.2d 654 (4th Cir. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“where there are no objections to the search warrant before or during the trial . . . the question of probable cause is not properly before the court for review.”
13 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Millan (washctapp, 2009-08-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Millan
Wash. Ct. App. · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
where there are no objections to the search warrant before or during the trial . . . the question of probable cause is not properly before the court for review.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Millan
Wash. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252, 1260 (10th Cir.2006) (declining to address claim that consent to search car was made involuntarily because claim was not asserted below); United States v. Lockett, 406 F.3d 207, 212 (3d Cir.2005) ("It is well settled that arguments asserted for the first time on appeal are deemed to be waived and consequently are not susceptible to review in this Court absent exceptional circumstances."); United States v. Luciano, 329 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.2003) (declining to address defendant's claim that consent to search was coerced because this ar…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hodges
4th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
United States v. Gray, 47 F.3d 1359, 1365 (4th Cir.1995); United States v. Fisher, 440 F.2d 654, 656 (4th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hall v. United States
E.D. Va. · 1998 · confidence medium
Requests for disclosure are “controlled by the well settled principle that the government is permitted to withhold the identity of a confidential informant when ‘the informant was used only for the limited purpose of obtaining a search warrant.’ ” United States v. Gray, 47 F.3d 1359, 1365 (quoting United States v. Fisher, 440 F.2d 654, 656 (4th Cir., 1971)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Mason Gray, (Two Cases)
4th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Applying the above principles to this case and assuming Olen Snyder was the informant, we conclude that Gray’s request for disclosure is controlled by the well settled principle that the government is permitted to withhold the identity of a confidential informant when “the informant was used only for the limited purpose of obtaining a search warrant.” Poms, 484 F.2d at 922 (quoting United States v. Fisher, 440 F.2d 654, 656 (4th Cir.1971)); see also Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 534-35 , 84 S.Ct. 825, 829 , 11 L.Ed.2d 887 (1964) (holding that defendant was not entitled to dis…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Felicia Ann Fleming, United States of America v. Steven Lenard Fleming
4th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. Fisher, 440 F.2d 654, 656 (4th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Nicholas James Pappas
4th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Finally, this Court has held that an informant's identity was properly withheld when "the informant was used only for the limited purpose of obtaining a search warrant." United States v. Fisher, 440 F.2d 654, 656 (4th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Alan Martin Poms
4th Cir. · 1973 · confidence medium
This court has previously recognized that the Government is permitted to withhold the identity of informants when “the informant was used only for the limited purpose of obtaining a search warrant.” United States v. Fisher, 440 F.2d 654, 656 (4 Cir. 1971); United States v. Pitt, 382 F.2d 322 (4 Cir. 1967) ; United States v. Whiting, 311 F.2d 191 (4 Cir. 1962), cert, denied, 372 U.S. 935 , 83 S.Ct. 882 , 9 L.Ed.2d 766 (1963).
discussed Cited "see" State v. McDaniel
Conn. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
Conn.), and cases cited therein; United States v. Mendoza, 433 F.2d 891 , 894 (5th Cir.); Miller v. United States, 273 F.2d 279, 281 (5th Cir.); see United States v. Fisher, 440 F.2d 654, 656 (4th Cir.); State v. Johnson, supra. In the absence of such evidence, the 'trial court did not err in denying the request for identity.
cited Cited "see" State v. Johnson
Conn. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
United States v. Mendoza, 433 F.2d 891 , 894 (5th Cir.); Miller v. United States, 273 F.2d 279, 281 (5th Cir.); see United States v. Fisher, 440 F.2d 654, 656 (4th Cir.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Joseph Bertram FISHER, Appellant
14755.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Apr 16, 1971.
440 F.2d 654
Lee M. Modjeska, Washington, D. C., on brief for appellant., George Beall, U. S. Atty., and Charles G. Bernstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.
Haynsworth, Craven, Butzner.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Joseph Bertram Fisher appeals from his conviction, by the district court without a jury, for receipt and concealment of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313. The vehicle was moving in interstate commerce from the State of Florida to the State of Maryland. The United States Government moved to dismiss the appeal and, in the alternative, moved for summary affirmance. The appellant filed an opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss. Counsel for the appellant then moved for leave to withdraw as counsel, but later filed a motion to withdraw the latter motion. We find oral argument unnecessary and summarily affirm.

Appellant assigned error in four particulars. First, it is urged there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. There is ample evidence to support the court’s finding of guilt, and the contention is without merit.

Secondly, appellant excepts to the refusal of the government to disclose the name of the informer. This contention is without merit. A careful reading of the transcript revealed that ap[*656] pellant’s counsel did not ask for the identity of the informer, but only asked if he (informer) was to be presented at the trial. Furthermore, the informant was used only for the limited purpose of obtaining a search warrant. It is well established that the government is privileged to withhold the identity of such informants. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); United States v. Whiting, 311 F.2d 191, 195 (4th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 935, 83 S.Ct. 882, 9 L.Ed.2d 766 (1963).

Thirdly, appellant insists that there was no probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Where there are no objections to the search warrant before or during the trial, as here, the requirement of Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U. S.C., is construed by other circuits to mean that the question of probable cause is not properly before the court for review. See United States v. Wenner, 417 F.2d 979 (8th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1047, 90 S.Ct. 700, 24 L.Ed.2d 692 (1970); Matthews v. United States, 407 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1969); Fuller v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 264, 407 F.2d 1199 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1120, 89 S.Ct. 999, 22 L.Ed.2d 125 (1968); Williams v. United States, 323 F.2d 90 (10th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 906, 84 S.Ct. 659, 11 L.Ed.2d 605 (1963).

Even if objection to the search had been timely made, we could not presently review the question on this record, for the affidavit supporting the warrant was not sent up.

This is not to prejudice or preclude appellant’s right to apply for relief in a § 2255 proceeding if he is so advised. United States v. Mandello, 426 F.2d 1021 (4th Cir. 1970).

Fourthly, appellant urges that undue weight was accorded to the fact of possession of recently stolen property. In United States v. Ross, 424 F.2d 1016, 1020 (4th Cir. 1970), we held that possession of recently stolen property justifies an inference that the possession was with the knowledge that the property was stolen. The evidence in this case justifies the inference that Fisher knew that the motor vehicle was stolen.

Affirmed.