US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

RUGENDORF V. UNITED STATES, 376 U. S. 528 (1964)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 376 U. S. 528 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528 (1964)

Rugendorf v. United States

No. 223

Argued February 27, 1964

Decided March 30, 1964

376 U.S. 528


Petitioner was convicted of knowingly concealing stolen fur garments in violation of 18 U.S. C. § 2315. The stolen furs were found in the basement of his home pursuant to a search warrant issued on the strength of an affidavit factually inaccurate in two respects and based partly on hearsay statements of confidential informants. Petitioner's motion to suppress the introduction in evidence of the seized furs was denied by the trial court.


1. The search warrant was valid as long as it provided a substantial basis to support the conclusion that the stolen goods were probably in petitioner's basement. Pp. 376 U. S. 531-533.

(a) Factual inaccuracies, not going to the integrity of the affidavit, do not destroy probable cause for a search. Pp. 376 U. S. 532-533.

(b) Hearsay, if it provides sufficient evidence of probable cause, justifies the issuance of a search warrant. Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, followed. P. 376 U. S. 533.

2. Petitioner's claim that he was entitled to the informant's name in order to defend himself at the trial must be rejected where first raised in petitioner's reply brief on appeal, his previous request having been confined to support of his motion to suppress the evidence. Pp. 376 U. S. 534-536.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Pp. 376 U. S. 536-537.

316 F.2d 589, affirmed. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 376 U. S. 529

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™