United States v. James Morgan Jackson

James Jackson appeals from a conviction for possession of heroin. We affirm.

Background

In June 1975, a confidential and untested informant told local police and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents that a person named “James” had telephoned the home of Archie Acklin concerning a pending narcotics purchase by the caller. The informant was Acklin’s mother-in-law, who was living with her daughter and Acklin. She gave the telephone number left with her by “James” to a DEA agent, who discovered that it was registered in Bessemer, Alabama to the step-father of James Jackson and of James’s older brother named Ernest Jackson. A description of this James Jackson was obtained from DEA agents in Alabama.

Several days later the informant provided officers with a Los Angeles telephone number at which “James” could then be reached. The number was registered to a Gayle Jackson in a building owned by Ernest Jackson. At the time that “James” could be reached in Los Angeles, Alabama agents reported that James Jackson was “not in town” at his home in Alabama.

On or about June 9, the informant reported that James had given Acklin about $10,-000 in cash, that the money was at Acklin’s…

(dissenting):

I dissent only from that part of the opinion holding that the district court was required to find that the informant’s reliability and the reliability of the information that she gave was sufficiently corroborated to supply probable cause for Jackson’s arrest. Although I disagree with the clearly erroneous standard of review that the majority of this court adopted in United States v. Hart (9th Cir. en banc 1976) 546 F.2d *412 798, 804 (Hufstedler, J., dissenting), this panel is bound by the Hart rule. If Hart is to be applied to this situation, as the majority assumes, then I cannot agree that the district court’s decision on the reliability issues can be overturned. The majority opinion simply substitutes its appraisal of the corroborative evidence for the district court’s. Moreover, as the majority acknowledges, the “verified bits did not relate directly to the criminal activity.” Corroboration of innocuous details will not pass the Aguilar-Spinelli test. (Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 ; Aguilar v. Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 ; United States v. Larkin (9th Cir. 1974) 510 F.2d 13 .)

544 F.2d 407 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Morgan JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 75-3489. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 12, 1976. Kent Ten Brink, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. William D. Keller, U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before BARNES, HUFSTEDLER and CHOY, Circuit Judges. CHOY, Circuit Judge: 1 James Jackson appeals from a conviction for possession of heroin. We affirm. Background 2 In June 1975, a confidential and untested informant told local police and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents that a person named "James" had telephoned the home of Archie Acklin concerning a pending narcotics purchase by the caller. The informant was Acklin's mother-in-law, who was living with her daughter and Acklin. She gave the telephone number left with her by "James" to a DEA agent, who discovered that it was registered in Bessemer, Alabama to the step-father of James Jackson and of James's older brother named Ernest Jackson. A description of this James Jackson was obtained from DEA agents in Alabama. 3 Several days later the informant provided officers with a Los Angeles telephone number at…