United States v. Michael Robert Ardle

Prior to his jury trial on a charge of violating 21 U.S.C. § 174 , illegal transportation and concealment of heroin, Ardle moved to suppress certain crucial evidence. The motion was denied, was renewed at trial and again denied, and Ardle was convicted. Ardle now appeals contending that his motion to suppress should have been granted. We affirm.

The pretrial motion was submitted on a stipulation of facts and an affidavit of Ardle. At trial, there was relevant oral testimony by customs agents. In passing upon a claim of error such as this one, an appellate court “will not ordinarily limit itself to the testimony received at a pretrial [hearing], but will also consider pertinent testimony given at the trial.” Rocha v. United States, 9 Cir., 1967, 387 F.2d 1019, 1021 . The following statement of facts is therefore based upon the stipulation, the affidavit, and the trial testimony.

Before 8:00 P.M. on September 30, 1969, Customs Agent Holgerson at No-gales had received a tip that one Kip Zech and another person would be travelling to Nogales, Sonora, in a green Volkswagen sedan or “bug,” for the pur pose of purchasing heroin. The informant had not previously provided any…