Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States of America Ex Rel. Thomas Hollman H-8567 v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford

United States Ex Rel. Thomas Hollman H-8567 v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Corr. Inst. at Graterford, 461 F.2d 758 (3d Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-06-09
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • probable cause to arrest suspect in two-man robbery who matched physical description of first robber “perfectly” and was accompanied by a man closely fitting description of second robber
  • probable cause to arrest suspect who matched physical description of bank robber

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States of America Ex Rel. Thomas Hollman H-8567 v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions
UNITED STATES v. RUNDLE,461 F.2d 758(3rd Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. THOMAS HOLLMAN H-8567, APPELLANT, v. ALFRED
T. RUNDLE, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD.
No. 71-1824.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted May 22, 1972 Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6).
Decided June 9, 1972.
John D. Cole, Defender Assn. of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Before STALEY, ALDISERT, and HUNTER, Circuit Judges.
[1] OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
[2] Appellant was found guilty in the criminal courts of Philadelphia County and sentenced on a charge of aggravated robbery. He appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which affirmed the conviction in a per curiam opinion. Commonwealth v. Hollman,216 Pa. Super. 834,266 A.2d 491(1970). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal on August 20, 1970, No. 128-A Mis. DocketPage 75918. Appellant filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which was denied,329 F. Supp. 1052. This appeal followed.

[3] Initially, appellant contends that a pretrial photographic identification was unconstitutionally admitted into evidence at trial as it was obtained as the result of an allegedly illegal arrest and detention. He argues that the police, without probable cause, took him into custody, and thereupon photographed him in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

[4] We agree with the District Court that the police did in fact have probable cause to arrest. Our examination of the record reveals that a sufficiently detailed description of the suspects was broadcast over the police radio.1Appellant was seen one night later near the scene of the crime, fit one of the descriptions perfectly, and was in the company of a man closely fitting the second description. Under the circumstances the police had probable cause to arrest and the subsequent photographic identification was not therefore the product of an illegal search and seizure.Cf.Davis v. Mississippi,394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969).

[5] Citing our opinion in United States v. Zeiler,427 F.2d 1305(3d Cir., 1970), appellant contends that the photographic identification in the absence of counsel was a denial of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. This argument is precluded by our recent decision in United States ex rel. Reed v. Anderson,461 F.2d 739(3d Cir., 1972). Further, our review of the identification procedure at issue convinces us that it did not give rise to a "very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Simmons v. United States,390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968).

[6] The order of the District Court will be affirmed.Page 764
  1. Here the description of the suspects included race, height, weight, color of hair, type of hair styling, as well as the precise color of clothing — dark blue and camel hair. Cf. Commonwealth v. Berrios,437 Pa. 338,263 A.2d 342(1970). ↩