Howard Eugene Eaton v. United States

PER CURIAM: This appeal from a conviction for counterfeiting (18 U.S.C. §§ 471, 472) raises only the issue of the trial court’s *1356 denial after an evidentiary hearing, of a motion to suppress evidence. The evidence in question consisted of a large stock of counterfeiting supplies, and was seized in a search of appellant’s commercial printing establishment pursuant to the authority of a warrant. The affidavit by a Secret Service agent underlying the warrant recited that (1) counterfeit $10 and $20 bills had been passed in Atlanta on May 4, 1967, (2) a reliable informant had stated that appellant was engaged in printing counterfeit bills at the Peachtree Press, (3) an agent had observed appellant working at the Press on the evening of May 9, and (4) on the nights of May 10 and 11, the contents of the trash container in front of the Press were found to contain letters addressed to appellant, letterheads and other papers relating to the Peachtree Press, photographic negatives of $10 and $20 bills, and partially printed impressions of a $10 bill. Appellant’s contention is that the affidavit is deficient because of the allegedly inadequate reference to the informant. In support of this argument, much is sought to be made of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spinelli v.