noting that “policemen are presumed to be reliable, and that an affiant policeman need not give additional reasons for believing the report of another policeman”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “policemen are presumed to be reliable, and that an affiant policeman need not give additional reasons for believing the report of another policeman”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KILEY, Senior Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I concur in the majority opinion, except that I do not join in its reliance upon United States v. Carmichael, 489 F.2d 983 (7th Cir. 1973) (en banc), to sustain the wiretap order. I think United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 , 91 S.Ct. 2075 , 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971), gives ample support to that order.
In the en banc Carmichael opinion, the majority, in the light of Harris, supra, found the second informant’s statement to the reliable informant an admission against interest and permissible as reliable hearsay upon hearsay. My dissent in Carmichael was upon the ground that although the second informant’s statement there was an admission against interest, and to that extent reliable, Harris did not compel a finding that the admission of that informant was sufficiently credible to carry the trustworthiness which the Supreme Court in Harris found in the statements of the informant there. I adhere to my dissent in Carmichael where, in my opinion, the facts were insufficient to establish the requisite second element of credibility under Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 *612 (1969), and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed. 723 (1964).
In Harris, supra, Chief Justice Burger made three general statements, starting 403 U.S. at p. 583 , 91 S.Ct. at p. 2082 , including the one quoted by Judge Pell. However, in the sentence following the third general statement the Chief Justice stated:
Concedely admissions of crime do not always lend credibility to contemporaneous or later accusations of another.
And in the sentence following the quoted sentence above, the reason is given for crediting the Harris informant’s admission. 403 U. S. p. 584, 91 S.Ct. 2075 . The concession limiting the earlier general statements permits my adherence to my dissent in Carmichael .
Although neither party to this appeal has raised the question of whether the wiretap application was properly authorized, the record establishes that the application was properly authorized under the recent Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 , 94 S.Ct. 1820 , 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974), and United States v. Chavez, 416 U.S. 562 , 94 S.Ct. 1849 , 40 L.Ed.2d 380 (1974).