United States v. William Lloyd Bailey

Bailey appeals from his conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), (d) and (e). The pivotal issue on appeal is the validity of two search warrants, pursuant to which incriminating evidence was seized.

Bailey and his codefendant Cochran robbed a branch office of Western Savings and Loan Bank in Globe, Arizona, on April 2, 1971. They took $8490 in travelers checks and $3056 in cash. In the course of the robbery, Bailey captured and held as hostages the manager of the bank and his family. About six weeks after the robbery, on May 12, 1971, Bailey and Cochran were arrested more than 100 miles from Globe in Tucson, Arizona. At the time of his arrest, Bailey was driving a 1970 Pontiac Grand Prix automobile bearing Colorado license plates. He was accompanied by an unidentified person. Cochran was arrested in a house in Tucson later the same day at which time she told one of the FBI agents that she had borrowed the Pontiac from a friend of hers in Denver about a month after the Globe robbery.

Search warrants were issued the day after the arrests had been made. One warrant was issued to search the Pontiac, and the other was issued to search the house in which…

(dissenting):

If either of the searches was valid, the judgment should be affirmed on the theory that the error complained of did not, beyond a reasonable doubt, contribute to the conviction. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). Both searches, in my opinion, were valid and should be upheld.

*413 THE AUTOMOBILE SEARCH

The affidavit makes it crystal clear that appellant was the bank robber or at least one of the participants in the robbery. It identifies the checks and currency which were stolen from the bank, the clothing worn by the robbers and the pistol used at the time of the robbery. The affidavit clearly establishes that the bank robber was “apprehended” 1 in a 1970 Pontiac vehicle and that the af-fiant had reason to believe that the vehicle might contain the fruits of the robbery and the personal property above mentioned. From the foregoing, the Magistrate could reasonably infer: (1) that the bank robber would be in possession of some of the fruits of the robbery; (2) that he would have some of the fruits with him in the automobile; (3) that the robber…

458 F.2d 408 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William Lloyd BAILEY, Appellant.. No. 71-2531. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 21, 1972. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 1, 1972. Philip Fahringer (argued) of O'Dowd, Fahringer & Diamos, Tucson, Ariz., for appellant. James Wilkes, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), William C. Smitherman, U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee. Before DUNIWAY, HUFSTEDLER and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges. HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge: 1 Bailey appeals from his conviction for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (a), (d) and (e). The pivotal issue on appeal is the validity of two search warrants, pursuant to which incriminating evidence was seized. 2 Bailey and his codefendant Cochran robbed a branch office of Western Savings and Loan Bank in Globe, Arizona, on April 2, 1971. They took $8490 in travelers checks and $3056 in cash. In the course of the robbery, Bailey captured and held as hostages the manager of the bank and his family. About six weeks after the robbery, on May 12, 1971, Bailey and Cochran were arrested more than 100 miles from Globe in Tucson, Arizona. At the time of his arrest, Bailey was driving…