United States v. Roberts

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Watson

    423 U.S. 411 (1976)   Cited 2,185 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that probable cause supports warrantless arrest of a suspect

    A warrant based on anticipated facts is premature and void. United States v. Roberts, 333 F. Supp. 786 (ED Tenn. 1971).

  2. United States v. Ford

    553 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1977)   Cited 29 times
    In Ford, supra, the court's order authorized surreptitious entry; however, the order was found invalid on its face because of overbreadth.

    United States v. Cobb, 432 F.2d 716, 719 (4th Cir. 1970). Cf. Spinelli v. United States, supra note 59; United States v. Roberts, 333 F. Supp. 786 (E.D.Tenn. 1971), quoting Durham v. United States, 403 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1968).See United States v. Hill, supra note 64; United States v. Ceraso, 467 F.2d 647, 653 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Ceraso, 355 F. Supp. 126 (M.D.Pa. 1973).

  3. State v. Gutman

    670 P.2d 1166 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 20 times
    In State v. Gutman, 670 P.2d at 1173, the Alaska appeals court held that although the warrant itself failed to specify the contingent events which would make its execution valid, those events were adequately spelled out in the supporting affidavit and the warrant incorporated the affidavit by reference.

    The Arizona Court of Appeals held the warrant invalid stating that at the time it was issued, no crime had been committed, no crime was in progress, and "it was a matter of pure speculation whether one would be committed in the future." Id. See also United States v. Roberts, 333 F. Supp. 786, 787 (E.D.Tenn. 1971) (search warrant will not issue upon an affidavit reciting only the anticipation of a future offense); Campbell v. Rundle, 327 F.2d 153, 162-63 (3d Cir. 1964) (no probable cause because no showing that law was about to be violated). When we assess the circumstances of the present case in light of the standards for a valid anticipatory warrant described by Professor LaFave and adopted in Johnson v. State, and when we compare these circumstances to those of cases such as State v. Vitale, where warrants have been held invalid because prematurely issued, it becomes apparent that the anticipatory search warrant for Gutman's residence did not leave determination of probable cause in the hands of the police and was not premature.

  4. State v. Bonaparte

    34 Wn. App. 285 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 9 times
    Allowing evidence of the wife's statements to a third person

    [2] Bonaparte next contends that Mrs. Bonaparte's statement that her husband would be returning to Seattle carrying drugs cannot form the basis for probable cause to arrest because it is a statement of intent to commit a crime in the future. He relies on United States v. Roberts, 333 F. Supp. 786 (E.D. Tenn. 1971) where the court stated: "A search warrant will not issue upon an affidavit reciting only the anticipation of a future offense." Roberts, at 787.