515 HARLAN, J., dissenting. This claim temporary certificates into permanent ones. arises due to the delays incident to the issuance of a permanent certificate. We spoke of the "nigh interminable" delay in § 5 proceedings in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, supra, at 389. There delay operated against the consumer. Here it operates against the producer. The Commission has been making efforts in this regard, through the establishment of guidelines for determining initial prices and other administrative devices. 43 F. P. C. Ann. Rep. 13, 119-120 (1963). However, we again call to its attention the dangers inherent in the accumulation of a large backlog of cases with its accompanying irreparable injury to the parties. Moreover, consumers may become directly affected thereby through the reluctance of producers to enter interstate markets because of the long delay incident to permanent certification. Procedures must be worked out, not only to clear up this docket congestion, but also, to maintain a reasonably clear current docket so that hearings may be had without inordinate delay. In this connection the techniques of the National Labor Relations Board might be studied with a view to determining whether its exemption practices, see Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U. S. 1, 3-4 (1957), might be helpful in the solution of the Commission's problems. Reversed. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins, dissenting. While the result reached by the Court may be thought desirable, I can find no justification for it either in the Natural Gas Act or in any of the prior decisions of this Court. The matter is one for Congress. I would affirm the judgments below substantially for the reasons given by Judge Brown in his convincing opinion for the Court of Appeals. 306 F. 2d 334. Syllabus. 376 U.S. RUGENDORF v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 223. Argued February 27, 1964.-Decided March 30, 1964. 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. Held: 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. 531-533. (a) Factual inaccuracies, not going to the integrity of the affidavit, do not destroy probable cause for a search. Pp. 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. 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. 534-536. 3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Pp. 536-537. 316 F. 2d 589, affirmed. Julius Lucius Echeles argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Melvin B. Lewis and Howard W. Minn. David C. Acheson argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Frank Goodman and Philip R. Monahan. 528 Opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. Following a trial by jury, petitioner was convicted of violating 18 U. S. C. § 23151 by knowingly receiving, concealing and storing 81 stolen fur pieces, the fur pieces having been transported in interstate commerce and having a value exceeding $5,000. The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction despite petitioner's objections that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict; that the fur garments should have been excluded from evidence because they were seized on the authority of a search warrant supported by a deficient affidavit; and that the names of certain confidential informants referred to in the affidavit should have been disclosed. 316 F. 2d 589. We granted certiorari, 375 U. S. 812, and affirm the judgment. I. The search warrant under attack was issued by the United States Commissioner on the strength of an affidavit dated March 22, 1962, and signed by Marlin Moore, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The affidavit stated that Moore had reason to believe that approximately 80 fur stoles and jackets, taken in a burglary in Mountain Brook, Alabama, and worth about $40,000, were concealed in the basement of a single family residence at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue in Chicago. 118 U. S. C. § 2315: "Whoever receives, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any goods, wares, or merchandise, securities, or money of the value of $5,000 or more, or pledges or accepts as security for a loan any goods, wares, or merchandise, or securities, of the value of $500 or more, moving as, or which are a part of, or which constitute interstate or foreign commerce, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken; . . . ... "Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Opinion of the Court. 376 U.S. Moore supported this allegation with statements that L. Dean Paarmann, a Special Agent of the Birmingham, Alabama, Office of the FBI, informed Moore that on February 10, 1962, 82 mink, otter, and beaver stoles and jackets (but no full-length coats), worth approximately $42,044, were stolen in Mountain Brook, Alabama, and that on March 16, 1962, a confidential informant who had furnished reliable information in the past told Moore that during the previous week he saw approximately 75 to 80 mink, otter and beaver stoles and jackets (but no full-length coats) in the basement of the home of Samuel Rugendorf at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue, Chicago. The labels had been removed and the informant was told that the furs were stolen. Moore further supported the allegation with the following statements: FBI Special Agent McCormick advised affiant that a confidential informant whom the FBI had found to be reliable told McCormick that Frank Schweihs of Chicago, and others, committed the Alabama robbery; McCormick told the affiant that on or about March 1, 1962, James Kelleher, a Chicago police officer, said to McCormick "that he saw FRANK SCHWEIHS at RUGGENDORF [sic] BROTHERS MEAT MARKET, managed by SAMUEL RUGGENDORF [sic] . . ; further, Agent McCORMICK ad vised this affiant that another confidential informant who has furnished reliable information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the past told McCORMICK that LEO RUGGENDORF [sic] was a fence for FRANK SCHWEIHS; that SAMUEL RUGGENDORF [sic] was LEO RUGGENDORF'S [sic] brother and was associated in the meat business with his brother." The affidavit also stated that another FBI Special Agent, J. J. Oitzinger, told the affiant that another confidential informant who had supplied the FBI with reliable information in the past advised Oitzinger that Frank 528 Opinion of the Court. Schweihs, Tony Panzica and Mike Condic were accomplished burglars who disposed of the proceeds of their burglaries through Leo Rugendorf. Finally, the affidavit alleged that, upon checking the informant's description of the furs seen at 3117 West Jarvis Avenue, affiant found that the only reported burglary in the United States in the previous six months involving furs of that description and value was the one occurring at Mountain Brook, Alabama. Pursuant to the search warrant based on this affidavit, a search was made and 81 furs were found in the basement of petitioner's residence. Fifty-nine of these furs had been stolen in Mountain Brook and the other 22, in Shreveport, Louisiana. Prior to trial, the trial court heard testimony on petitioner's motion, under Rule 41 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to suppress the use of the seized furs as evidence. The trial court denied the motion insofar as it challenged the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, but reserved ruling on the truthfulness of the affidavit. During the trial, another hearing was held on the reserved aspect of the motion to suppress and the motion was denied. Also denied was a motion to require the Government to disclose the names of the confidential informants referred to in the affidavit. II. Petitioner attacks the validity of the search warrant. This Court has never passed directly on the extent to 2 Rule 41 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: "Motion for Return of Property and to Suppress Evidence. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure, may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized for the return of the property and to suppress for the use as evidence anything so obtained on the ground that . . . (4) there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued.... |