Appendix — United States v. Ramsey

Supreme Court brief1977

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

APPENDIX

Iu the Suprenve Court of thie United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1976

No. 76-167

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner

—

CHARLES W. RAMSEY and JAMES W. KELLY

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED AUGUST 5, 1976

CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 4, 1976

Iu the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1976

No. 76-167

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner

CHARLES W. RAMSEY and JAMES W. KELLY

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

INDEX*

Page

Relevant docket entries ............. OEY WRI SIME aed Rroe fs 1

Affidavit in support of search warrant 0. 3

Indictment ...... spieitbedinedaneibaindeitideniiesesiitianiiens silane (ciniedidlieiiieisininigbins 9

Motion to suppress ......00000000....... OSES VENUES ee eRe Ee Ee 16

Transcript of hearing on motion to suppress .................. 28

Order denying motion to suppress ......000000 ee. 55

Excerpts from stipulations at trial 000. 56

Order allowing certiorari 0.0... SS eae IO IE setae 82

* A copy of the opinion of the court of appeals is reprinted as

Appendix A to the petition for a writ of certiorari. The judgment

of the court of appeals appears as Appendix B to the petition.

CRIMINAL DOCKET

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

No. 74-623

1. CHARLES W. RAMSEY

2. JAMES W. KELLY

21 U.S.C. 9552(a); 843(b); 841(a):

Importation of a controlled substance;

unlawful use of communicative facil-

ity; unlawful possession with intent

to distribute a controlled substance.

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

Date Proceedings

10/25/74 Indictment filed

11/1/74 Motion to suppress the physical evidence by United

States Customs denied

11/18/74 Jury trial waived

11/22/74 Stipulated Record in part submitted

12/2/74 Remaining portions of Stipulated Record submitted

12/20/74 Judgment directing verdict of guilty be entered

as to both respondents

2/14/75 Sentence imposed; Judgment entered as to defend-

ant Charles W. Ramsey

Notice of Appeal of Charles Ramsey filed

7/2/75 Sentence imposed; Judgment entered as to defend-

ant James W. Kelly. Notice of Appeal of James W.

Kelly filed

(1)

Date Proceedings

6/10/76 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Mc-

Gowan

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Robb.

7/12/76 Copy of letter from Clerk, U.S. Supreme Court

extending time to file petition for certiorari to August

9, 1976, filed.

8/9/76 Notice of filing petition for certiorari in S.C. No.

76-167 on August 5, 1976, filed

10/12/76 Certified copy of order from the Supreme Court

granting petition for a writ of certiorari in S.C. + 76-

167 on October 4, 1976, filed.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A U. S. MAGISTRATE’S SEARCH

WARRANT FOR THE PREMISES OF APARTMENT 2, 13-S

STREET, N.E., WASHINGTON, D.C., DESCRIBED AS A

MULTI-UNIT BRICK Row House.

On February 1, 1974, information was received by the

Washington District Office, Drug Enforcement Adminis-

tration, from the Bangkok Regional Office, Bangkok,

Thailand, that William WARD and Sylvia BAILEY had

distributed twenty-five (25) ounces of high-grade Heroin

through the mail system to the United States and possi-

bly Germany. The Heroin was contained in two types

of envelopes; (1) a white envelope with Thai stamps,

“airmail” stamped in red, measuring 814,” by 414”, and

(2) a brown envelope with Thai stamps, “airmail”

stamped in red, measuring 6°4” by 434”. At least two of

these envelopes were addressed to the CONTINENTAL

PRINTING COMPANY, 1125 “D” Street, N.E., Wash-

ington, D. C. 20002 from the GETZ PAK PRINTING

COMPANY, 91 Patpong, Bangkok, Thailand.

On Monday, February 4, 1974, information was re-

ceived by the Washington District Office, Drug Enforce-

ment Administration, that BAILEY and WARD were

arrested in Room 1117 of the Rama Hyatt Motel, Bang-

kok, Thailand, in possession of a kilogram of heroin. At

the time of their arrest, WARD and BAILEY were in

the process of dividing a kilogram of Heroin into ounce

envelopes for distribution to the United States via mail.

Twenty-nine (29) envelopes were sealed and addressed

to various addresses in the United States. The four (4)

addresses below were among the 29, and are in the Wash-

ington, D. C. area:

TO: Miss D. Kelly

1622 Perry Street, N.E.

Washington, D. C. 20018

FROM: Wing Chu

71 Sub Road

Bangkok, Thailand

TO: Miss Mary Richardson

311 Rock Creek Church Rd., N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20011

FROM: S. Richardson

293-2 Suriwongse Road

Bangkok, Thailand

TO: Continental Printing Co.

1125 D Street, N.E.

Washington, D. C. 20002

FROM: Kim Lee Printing Co.

P. O. Box 127

Bangkok, Thailand

TO: Miss Shirley Hill

5109 Mann

Deanewood Park, Maryland 20027

FROM: K. Singh

13216 Gayson Road

Bangkok, Thailand

On February 5, 1974, information was received from

the New York Regional Office, Drug Enforcement Ad-

ministration, that the United States Customs had inter-

cepted eight (8) envelopes containing a white powdery

substance addressed to four Washington, D. C. addresses.

Two envelopes were addressed to Miss D. KELLY, 1622

Perry Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20013. One of the

two envelopes contained 21 grams of a white powdery

substance, for a total of 49 grams. The return address

was reflected as MALER SAE HENG, 66 Sukhumnit,

Bangkok, Thailand. A field test was initiated by George

Kallnischkies, Supervisory Customs Mail Specialist, and

a positive reaction for an opiate substance was obtained.

Two other envelopes were addressed to CONTINENTAL

PRINTING COMPANY, 1125 “D” Street, N.E., Wash-

ington, D. C. 20002, from THE GETZ PAK PRINTING

COMPANY, 91 Patpong, Bangkok, Thailand. Each of

the envelopes contained a white powdery substance, and

each envelope contained 21 grams of said substance for

a total of 42 grams. A field test by Customs Officer Kall-

nischkies produced a positive reaction for an opiate sub-

stance. Two more envelopes were addressed to Miss Mary

RICHARDSON, 311 Rock Creek Church Road, N.W.,

Washington, D. C. 20011, from NEW STAR STUDIO,

345 Metraphan, Bangkok, Thailand. One envelope con-

tained 21 grams of a white powdery substance, and the

other envelope contained 14 grams of a white powdery

substance, for a total of 35 grams. A field test by Cus-

toms Officer Kallnischkies produced a positive reaction

for an opiate substance. The last two envelopes were

addressed to Miss Shirley HILL, 5109 Mann Street,

Deanewood Park, Maryland 20027, from KAMOL JEW-

ELERY SHOP [illegible] Rama IV Road, Bangkok, Thai-

land. Each of the envelopes contained 21 grams of a white

powdery substance, for a total of 42 grams. A field test

by Customs Officer Kallnischkies produced a positive reac-

tion for an opiate substance.

On February 5, 1974, the eight (8) envelopes contain-

ing the suspected Heroin were turned over to Special

Agents David Thamann and Kenneth Keefe, New York

Regional Office, Drug Enforcement Administration, by

U.S. Customs Officer George Kallnischkies. On February

6, 1974, the envelopes were forwarded in a locked mail

pouch to Postal Inspector Richard Hall, Merrifield, Vir-

ginia, under controlled conditions.

On February 12, 1974 the eight (8) envelopes were

received by Inspector Richard Hall, U.S. Postal Service,

Merrifield, Virginia. A search of the envelopes pursuant

to a U.S. Magistrates Search Warrant on February 12,

1974 yielded a quantity of white powder in each envelope.

A field test by the Affiant resulted in a positive reaction

for the presence of an opiate. All of the white powder

was seized from the eight (8) envelopes except for a

small amount. Lactose was then substituted for the sus-

pected heroin by the Affiant and the envelopes were re-

sealed by the Affiant and Inspector Hall. The envelopes

were retained in the custody of Inspector Hall for a fu-

ture controlled delivery.

A laboratory analysis of the heroin contained in three

(3) envelopes, addressed to Continental Printing Com-

pany, and 1125 “D” Street, N.E., Washington, D. C.

20002 which were previously seized on February 7, 1974,

pursuant to a U.S. Magistrate’s Search Warrant, yielded

92.5% Heroin Hydrochloride.

On February 4, 1974, an individual identifying him-

self as “Melvin Austin” obtained a cashier’s check in the

amount of $2,000.00 from the Riggs National Bank pay-

able to Gilda BUCK, a documented associate of Sylvia

BAILEY. On February 7, 1974, an individual identify-

ing himself as “Melvin Johnson” obtained a cashier’s

check in the amount of $4,000.00 payable to Gilda BUCK

from the same branch of Riggs National Bank. The

individual purchasing the checks from Riggs on both oc-

casions in February has been subsequently identified by

Bank officials as James W. Kelley, MPD identification

# 132 918.

A check of Sylvia BAILEY’s telephone tolls at Aschaf-

fenburg, Germany, by Drug Enforcement Administra-

tion Agents reveals a telephone call being made on

11/23/73 to Washington, D.C. telephone number (202)

635-0892. This telephone number is located at 13 S

Street N.E., Apartment 2, Washington, D.C. This phone

is listed to Inez Arrendell sister of Charles Ramsey.

Further, an examination of telephone tolls with telephone

number (202) 635-0892 reveals numerous telephone calls

to Germany, and in particular, to the area code “6021”

(Aschaffenburg, Germany area code). Upon conferring

with the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington,

D.C., it has been determined that 13 S Street, N.E., App.

# 2, Washington, D.C., is occupied by Charles W. RAM-

SEY, and during December 1973, Officers of the Metro-

politan Police Department have observed RAMSEY ex-

iting these premises during the morning hours.

On 2/14/74, James W. KELLY was observed by the

officers to meet with Charles RAMSEY, in the Unit

Block of S Street, N.E. after having also having been

observed the affiant and the DEA agent picking up the

letters containing heroin at each of the addresses listed

above (5109 Mann Street, Deanewood, Md.; 1125 D

Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.; and 311 Rock Creek

Church Road, N.W., Washington, D.C.). KELLY was

then observed by DEA agent [illegible] passing these let-

ters to Charles W. RAMSEY who was in the 1972

Lincoln (921-405 D.C. Registration) parked approxi-

mately in the front of 13 S Street, N.E. RAMSEY was

observed by DEA agents as he examined the package

* containing the letters, and incident to the arrest of

both RAMSEY and KELLY, RAMSEY was observed by

DEA Agents to hand the package back to KELLY.

A search of BAILEY incident to arrest produced a

personal notebook with the notation “Hotel Hyatt Rama,

Bangkok, Thailand.” This is the hotel where Sylvia

BAILEY was arrested in possession of one kilogram of

Heroin. In addition, there is a notation in the notebook

“BAILEY” number “# 6021-73133” and “# 6021-29156.”

Both these telephone numbers are located at Aschaffen-

burg, Germany, the hometown of Sylvia BAILEY. Ad-

ditionally, a letter was found in RAMSEY’s possession

addressed to “Mr. Charles RAMSEY, 13 S Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C., 20002.”

It is the opinion of the Affiant that based upon his

knowledge and experience over the past year and a half

that the purity of the Hervin being mailed to RAMSEY

would normally require diluting and packaging prior to

“street distribution.” It would be necessary to have a

location house or room, where this packaging could be

done. It is to be noted that when RAMSEY was observed

within minutes of his arrest he was approaching the im-

mediate vicinity of 13 S Street, N.E., and was parking

the Mark IV which he was driving. Thus the affiant

submits that it is reasonable to believe that RAMSEY

was preparing to enter 13 S Street, N.E., Washington,

D.C. (There is no evidence yet developed linking RAM-

SEY to any other house or apartment in the immediate

vicinity of 13 S Street, N.E.) and in light of the several

phone calls from the phone within apartment # 2 to the

Aschaffenburg, Germany hometown of Sylvia BAILEY

at least since December of 1973, that it is reasonable to

believe that 13 S Street, has been continually and recently

used as a cutting and packaging “pad” as well as a gen-

eral business address for the perpetuation of an interna-

tional network of illicit narcotic trafficking.

So too, it is the firm belief of the affiant that Charles

W. RAMSEY was the ultimate Washington, D.C. re-

cipient of the heroin mailed from Bangkok, Thailand, by

Sylvia BAILEY. This fact is based upon: (1) telephone

tolls from RAMSEY’s home telephone at 13 S Street,

N.E., Apartment + 2, Washington, D.C. to Aschaffen-

burg, Germany, the hometown of BAILEY; (2) the no-

tations found on RAMSEY at the time of his arrest link-

ing him to the hotel where BAILEY was arrested in

possession of a kilogram of Heroin; and (3) and the ob-

servations of DEA Agents on 2/14/74 when RAMSEY

took possession of the letters containing Heroin from

KELLY.

In view of the facts stated above, and the additional

fact that Charles RAMSEY is a known and convicted

narcotic felon (as well as having been recently convicted

of making false declaration before a Grand Jury), it is

the firm belief of the affiant that there is now contained

on the premises at 13 S Street, N.E., Apartment # 2,

Washington, D.C., the controlled substance Heroin; para-

phernalia used in the preparation of Heroin for retail

distribution, other instruments, fruit and documents in-

cluding records, logs, etc., related to the preparation and

dispensation of Heroin and any other narcotic drug il-

legally held in violation of 21 U.S.C. 174 and 21 U.S.C.

841(a) (1).

/s/ Michael E. Grimes

MICHAEL E. GRIMES, Special Agent

Drug Enforcement Administration

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of

February, 1974.

/8/

United States Magistrate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Holding a Criminal Term

Grand Jury Sworn in on April 1, 1974

Criminal Case No. 74-623

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CHARLES W. RAMSEY

JAMES W. KELLY

SYLVIA BAILEY

WILLIAM M. WARD

Grand Jury Original

Violation: 21 US Code 952(a) ; 843(bi ; 841(a)

(Importation of a Controlled Substance; Un-

lawful Use of a Communicative Facility; Un-

lawful Possession With Intent to Distribute a

Controlled Substance)

The Grand Jury charges:

FIRST COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JAMES W.

KELLY, SLYVIA BAILEY and WILLIAM M. WARD

did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally import 166.5

grams of heroin, a Schedule I narcotic drug controlled

substance and other substances, into the United States

from a place outside thereof, in violation of Title 21,

U.S. Code, Section 952(a).

SECOND COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JAMES W.

KELLY, SYLVIA BAILEY, and WILLIAM M. WARD

did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use a com-

munication facility, that is, the United States mails in

committing and in causing and facilitating the commis-

sion of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21,

U.S. Code, Section 952(a) and as set forth in Count 1

and Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth

in Count 17 of this indictment and relating specifically to

the address of 1125 D Street, Northeast, Washington,

D.C. and identified as lab exhibit +6 and 6(s) in vio-

lation of 21 U.S. Code, Section 843(b).

THIRD COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JAMES W.

KELLY, SYLVIA BAILEY, and WILLIAM M. WARD

did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use a com-

munication facility, that is, the United States mails in

committing and in causing and facilitating the commis-

sion of acts constituti nga felony under both Title 21,

U.S. Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and

Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count

17 of this indictment and relating specifically to the ad-

dress of 1125 D Street, Northeast, Washington, D.C.

and identified as lab exhibit #7 and 7(s) in violation

of Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 843(b).

FOURTH COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District of

Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JAMES W.

KELLY, SYLVIA BAILEY, and WILLIAM M. WARD

did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use a com-

munication facility, that is, the United States mails in

committing and in causing and facilitating the commis-

sion of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21,

U.S. Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and

Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count

17 of this indictment and relating specifically to the ad-

dress of 311 Rock Creek Church Road, Northwest, Wash-

ington, D.C. and identified as lab exhibit + 10 and 10(s)

in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 843(b).

FIFTH COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JAMES W.

KELLY, SYLVIA RAILEY, and WILLIAM M. WARD

did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use a com-

munication facility, that, is, the United States mails in

committing and in causing and facilitating the commis-

sion of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21,

U.S. Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and

Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count

17 of this indictment and relating specifically to the ad-

dress of 311 Rock Creek Church Road, Northwest, Wash-

ington, D.C. and identified as lab exhibit +11 and

11(s) in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 843(b).

SIXTH COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JAMES W.

KELLY, SYLVIA BAILEY, and WILLIAM M. WARD

did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use a com-

munication facility, that is, the United States mails in

committing and in causing and facilitating the commis-

sion of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21,

U.S. Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and

Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count

17 of this indictment and relating specifically to the ad-

dress of 5109 Mann Street, Deanewood, Maryland and

identified as lab exhibit # 12 and 12(s) in violation of

Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 843(b).

SEVENTH COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JAMES W.

KELLY, SYLVIA BAILEY, and WILLIAM M. WARD

did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use a com-

munication facility, that is, the United States mails in

committing and in causing and facilitating the commis-

sion of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21,

U.S. Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and

Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count

17 of this indictment and relating specifically to the ad-

dress of 5109 Mann Street, Deanewood, Maryland and

identified as lab exhibit # 13 and 13(s) in violation of

Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 843(b).

EIGHTH COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JAMES W.

KELLY, SYLVIA BAILEY, and WILLIAM M. WARD

did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use a com-

munication facility, that is, the United States mails in

committing and in causing and facilitating the commis-

sion of acts constituting a felony under Title 21, U.S.

Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 of this

indictment and relating specifically to the address of

1622 Perry Street, Northeast, Washington, D.C. and

identified as lab exhibit #8 and 8(s) in violation of

Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 843(b).

NINTH COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District

of Columbia. CHARLES W. RAMSEY, JAMES W.

KELLY, SYLVIA BAILEY, and WILLIAM M. WARD

did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use a com-

munication facility, that is, the United States mails in

committing and in causing and facilitating the commis-

sion of acts constituting a felony under Title 21, USS.

Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 of this in-

ee eee

dictment and relating specifically to the address of 1622

Perry Street, Northeast, Washington, D.C. and identi-

fied as lab exhibit # 9 and 9(s) in violation of Title 21,

U.S. Code Section 843(b).

TENTH COUNT:

On or about November 23, 1973, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY and SYLVIA

BAILEY did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally

use a communcation facility, that is, a telephone, in com-

mitting and in causing and facilitating the commission

of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21, U.S.

Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and Title

21 U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count 17

of this indictment in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code,

843 (b).

ELEVENTH COUNT:

On or about November 27, 1973, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY and SYLVIA

BAILEY did unlawfully, knowingly and _ intentionally

use a communication facility, that is, a telephone, in com-

mitting and in causing and facilitating the commission

of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21, U.S.

Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and Title

21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count 17

of this indictment in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code,

843 (b).

TWELFTH COUNT:

On or about December 7, 1973, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY and SYLVIA

BAILEY did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use

a communication facility, that is, a telephone, in com-

mitting and in causing and facilitating the commission

of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21, U.S.

Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and Title

21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count 17

of this indictment in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code,

843 (b).

THIRTEENTH COUNT:

On or about December 9, 1973, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY and SYLVIA

BAILEY did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use

a communication facility, that is, a telephone, in com-

mitting and in causing and facilitating the commission

of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21, U.S.

Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and Title

21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count 17

of this indictment in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code,

843 (b).

FOURTEENTH COUNT:

On or about December 10, 1973, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY and SYLVIA

BAILEY did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use

a communication facility, that is, a telephone, in commit-

ting and in causing and facilitating the commission of

acts constituting a felony under both Title 21, US.

Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and Title

21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count 17

of this indictment in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code,

843 (b).

FIFTEENTH COUNT:

On or about December 11, 1973, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY and SYLVIA

BAILEY did unlawfully, knowingly and _ intentionally

use a communication facility, that is, a telephone, in

committing and in causing and facilitating the commis-

sion of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21,

U.S. Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and

Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 841l(a) as set forth in

Count 17 of this indictment in violation of Title 21, U.S.

Code, 843(b).

EOL NE LG OY OE, ARO ER TCT CE ET

Miia Md tan hs SiG SS 30 STS 5 RDS Pe GBC ™

SIXTEENTH COUNT:

On or about December 13, 1973, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY and SYLVIA

BAILEY did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally use

a communication facility, that is, a telephone, in com-

mitting and in causing and facilitating the commission

of acts constituting a felony under both Title 21, U.S.

Code, Section 952(a) as set forth in Count 1 and Title

21, U.S. Code, Section 841(a) as set forth in Count 17

of this indictment in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code,

843 (b).

SEVENTEENTH COUNT:

On or about February 14, 1974, within the District

of Columbia, CHARLES W. RAMSEY and JAMES W.

KELLY did unlawfully, knowingly and _ intentionally

possess, with intent to distribute, 231.67 grems of heroin

and other substances, a Schedule I narcotic drug-con-

trolled substance in violation-of Title 21, U.S. Code,

Section 841(a).

/s/ Dennis F. Earman

A TRUE BILL:

Foreman

/s/ Earl J. Silbert

Attorney of the United States in

and for the District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Crim. No. 74-517

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Vv.

CHARLES W. RAMSEY, ET AL.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS TANGIBLE EVIDENCE

A short time prior to February 4, 1974, eight brown

envelopes containing heroin were air-mailed first class to

four Washington, D.C. addresses from Bangkok, Thailand

by two persons, one of whom was an American citizen.

After arriving in this country—the exact point and time

of entry is presently unknown to us—U.S. Customs agents

seized all eight pieces of mail in New York City, opened

the envelopes, field tested the contents thereof, and then

resealed them—all without a search warrant. After

conducting this warrantless search and seizure the en-

velopes were turned over to Drug Enforcement Agents

(D.E.A.) on February 5, 1974. On February 6, 1974,

they were forwarded to the Merrifield, Virginia post

office facility under controlled conditions. On February

12, 1974, D.E.A. agents obtained a search warrant for

these eight envelopes then located at the Merrifield postal

facility, (Exhibit A). The envelopes were seized the

same day and refilled for a controlled delivery to the

Washington addresses where they were allegedly picked

up by defendant James W. Kelly.

It is our contention that the original warrantless search

and seizure of the eight envelopes violated the Fourth

Amendment standard of reasonableness.

Since 1877, at least, mail of the instant type has been

subject to Fourth Amendment protections.

. EO Pe meas re

“Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail

are as fully guarded from examination and inspec-

tion, except as to their outward form and weight, as

if they were retained by the parties forwarding them

in their own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty

of the right of the people to be secure in their papers

against unreasonable searches and seizures extends

to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wher-

ever they may be. Whilst in the mail, they can only

be opened and examined under like warrant, issued

upon similar oath or affirmation .. .”. Ez parte

Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733 (1877)

Furthermore, regardless of the quantum of probable

cause, a search per se not incident to an arrest is ab-

solutely bad. Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1 (1932).

In Taylor, supra., prohibition agents had received com-

plaints about a particular premises for about a year.

Upon going there they smelled whiskey from within the

garage and a flashlight confirmed the presence of many

cardboard cases inside. The agents entered and seized

122 cases of whiskey. Held: invalid.

“Although over a considerable period numerous

complaints concerning the use of these premises had

been received, the agents had made no effort to ob-

tain a warrant for making a search. They had abun-

dant opportunity so to do and to proceed in an or-

derly way even after the odor had emphasized their

suspicions; there was no probability of material

change in the situation during the time necessary to

secure such warrant.” 28 U.S. at 6.

In the case at bar there were no exigent circumstances

present to allow for dispensing with a warrant; the

eight envelopes were in the custody and control of the

postal service and the Supreme Court over four years

ago, allowed a 29 hour detention of first class mail dur-

ing which time a search warrant could be procured for a

seizure. United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249

(1970).

The only theory we perceive available to the govern-

ment to support the initial warrantless seizures herein,

is the so-called Border Search. Under that concept, all

persons entering this country are subject to search and

seizure “without probable cause on the basis of mere

suspicion alone.” United States v. Henriquez, 483 F.d.

65 (5th Cir. 1973). That definition, however, may be too

broad as we read the landmark case of Carroll v. United

States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). Carroll sustained the prob-

able cause search of a car without a warrant under the

National Prohibition Act, because of reasonableness. In

reflecting upon such searches the Court alluded, inter alia,

to the progenitor of 19 U.S.C., Sec. 482 which:

“'Mjade lawful for customs officers not only to

board and search vessels within their own and ad-

joining districts, but also to stop, search and ex-

amine any vehicle, beast or person on which or whom

they should suspect their was merchandise which was

subject to duty or had been introduced into the

United States in any manner contrary to law. . .”.

Carroll, supra at 151. The Court alluded to this

statute and similar ones—

“To show that the guaranty of freedom from un-

reasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth

Amendment has been construed, practically since the

beginning of the Government, as recognizing a neces-

sary difference between a search of a store, dwelling

house or other structure in respect of which a proper

official warrant readily may be obtained, and a

search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or atitomobile,

for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to

secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly

moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which

the warrant must be sought.” at 153.

The Court also noted that all travellers may be stopped

while crossing international boundaries because of na-

tional self protection, “|b]ut those lawfully within the

country, entitled to use the public highways, have a

right of free passage without interruption of search un-

we. wow

less” there is probable cause to believe they are in viola-

tion of the law.

The present Border Search authorizing statute is 19

U.S.C., § 482. It provides for searches of any “vehicle,

beast, or person, on which or whom he or they shail sus-

pect there is merchandize which is subject to duty, or shall

have been introduced into the United States in any man-

ner contrary to law.” It also provides for customs agents

“to search any trunk or envelope, wherever found, in

which he may have a reasonable cause to suspect there

is merchandise which was imported contrary to law.”

It is interesting to note that the original Border Search

statute considered in Carroll v. United States, supra., i.e.,

8 Stat. 231, 232, March 3, 1815, distinguished between

an ambulatory and permanent situation.

“And if any of the said officers of the customs

shall suspect that any goods, wares, or merchandise,

which are subject to duty, or shall have been intro-

duced to law, are concealed in any particular dwel-

ling, store or other building, he shall, upon proper

application, on oath, to any judge or justice of the

peace, be entitled to a warrant .. . Provided always,

that the necessity of a search warrant, arising under

this act, shall in no case be considered as applicable

to any carriage, wagon, sleigh, vessel, boat, or other

vehicle, of whatever form or construction, employed

as a medium of transportation, or to packages on any

animal or animals or carried by man on foot.”

It was this original statute the Court alluded to in

Carroll, supra., when it observed that neither this sec-

tion “nor any of its earlier counterparts has ever been

attacked as unconstitutional.” 267 U.S. at 152. 13 Stat.

441, 442, February 28, 1865, which again allowed for the

so-called Border Search, provided for the stopping and

searching of persons or vehicles in transit.

For non-moving situations the statute provided:

“That in case any store, warehouse, or other build-

ing shall be upon or near the boundary line between

the United States and any foreign country, and there

is reason to believe that [items are placed there in

violation of law], and the collector . . . or surveyor

of customs, shall make oath before any magistrate

., that he has reason to believe, and does believe,

that such offence has been therein committed, such

officer shall have the right to search such building

14 Stat. 177, 178 July 18, 1866, for the first time specifi-

cally allowed customs officers to search any “trunk or

envelope”. But it is clear from a reading thereof, that

such searches without warrant only applied to trunks or

envelopes aboard vessels, vehicles, beasts or persons. The

present statute 19 U.S.C., § 482 is but an abbreviated

form of its predecessors, and from a historical perspec-

tive, does not permit for the opening of mail when there

is no danger of that mail moving before a warrant can

be obtained.

Time and time again the key to the validity vel non of

a particular search is “reasonableness’’, vis-a-vis the fact

that the warrant procedure is the judicially preferred

route.

In United States v. Beckly, 335 F.2d 86 (6th Circuit

1964) marihuana arrived into this country in a package

weighing between 9 and 10 pounds. It was stated to

contain wall matts, pillow cases and robes of a total

value of $23.00. A customs agent opened the package

without warrant and the Court sustained introduction

of the evidence at trial. As its first ground the Court

relied on the fact that only first class mail is subject to

the warrant procedure and here “first class postage was

not paid on the package.” 335 F.2d at 88. The Court

also fashioned a policy that:

“Fourth Amendment standards applicable to mail

matter moving entirely within the country are not

applicable to mail matter coming in from outside the

country at least where a customs determination must

be made. There seem to be no adjudicated cases

dealing with the necessity of probable cause and

search warrants for inspection by mail, but there

are many cases holding or indicating that such is

eh ae

not required generally for searches by customs agents

at the borders of the country.”

This decision used a shotgun border search approach

and extrapolated it to non-moving situations, without an-

alyzing the difference between a true border search and

mail matter already within the control of the postal au-

thorities and for which time to obtain a warrant is pres-

ent. The upshot of this judgment is that narcotics may

be mailed first class within the United States and only

seized upon probable cause resulting in a warrant while

the same mail entering from, let us say, Canada, can be

seized without probable cause and without a warrant.

Thus, every piece of first class mail entering this coun-

try, the government must contend is subject to being

opened for any reason and inspected. This would include

medical reports, financial reports, letters to tuved ones

and the like—an awesome governmental power. United

States v. Sohnen, 298 F. Supp. 51 (S.P.N.Y. 1969) also

sustained a search of international mail without a war-

rant relying on the Beckly, rationale. However, the Court

in Sohnen added a caveat:

“The Constitution at least prevents harsh and de-

meaning searches on mere suspicion and it may well

prevent the opening of letters, as opposed to pack-

ages containing merchandise, without a search war-

rant.”

Sohnen, concerned a sealed package containing twelve

gold coins which

“did not bear a required label stating that it could

be opened for customs inspection.

* * * *

The situation here is analogous to the inspection of

inbound commercia! shipments.”

United States v. Swede, 326 F. Supp. 533 (S.D.N.Y.

1971), also upheld the opening of first class mail from

Switzerland without a search warrant. In ruling, how-

ever, the Court determined that the envelope was a

“package” and thus, “we do not determine whether the

Constitution prevents the opening of letters, as opposed

to packages containing merchandise without a search

warrant.”

Recently, federal courts have obviously been aware of

the havoc that a blanket border search approach to first

class international mail would entail, and have accord-

ingly, been narrowing their decisions to exclude letters,

as the Court did in United States v. Swede, supra. In

United States v. Doe, 472 F.2d 982 (2d Cir. 1973), for

example, the Court upheld the search of a large package

from Columbia South America labelled “old clothing.”

“While this court has never expressly so held,

there is a substantial body of precedent that would

apply the same border-search standards to mail com-

ing into the country, especially where, as here, there

is a representation on the package that it contains

merchandise.” 472 F.2d at 984.

In Corngold v. United States, 367 F.2d I (9th Cir.

1966) the Court invalidated the search of a domestic

first class parcel containing smuggled watches without

a warrant. The government, in part, relied on 19 U.S.C.

$482. The Court noted that this was not a border

search and, in any event, concluded that:

“We need not examine the statute’s precise mean-

ing, for appellant’s attack upon the search of his

package is based solely on constitutional grounds

and, however it is to be read, the statute could not

effectively authorize a search which the constitution

prohibited.” 367 F.2d at 3.

Cf. Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733 (1877).

“No law of Congress can place in the hands of of-

ficials connected with the postal service any author-

ity to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed

packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted

as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordin-

ation to the great principle embodied in the fourth

amendment of the Constitution.”

ener mers ar te

“It can hardly be contended that the sender or the

addressee had a reasonable expectation of privacy

with regard to a large package mailed from a for-

eign country, which is represented to contain non-

dutiable merchandise. Cf. Katz v. United Siates,

389 U.S. 347... .”.

Conversely, as to letter type envelopes, such expecta-

tion of privacy would be reasonable and accordingly, sub-

ject to the Fourth Amendment on the rationale of Katz.

In United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Mer.,

363 F. Supp. 165 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), the Court noted that

“the constraints placed on government intrusion into per-

sons and their papers by the Fourth Amendment do ap-

ply to Customs searches.” at 167. Judge Duffy also ob-

served that: “Some courts have hinted that the standards

may be different when dealing with a letter-sized en-

velope than when it is a package with merchandise which

is at issue.”

This distinction between letters and packages is, no

doubt, due in large part to subjective appraisals of pri-

vacy. While all of us have a general notion that large

packages can be inspected by postal employees, we

strongly believe that our letters and small sealed en-

velope type of correspondence is beyond postal scrutiny.

We abhor notions of censorship such as that practiced in

totalitarian countries or prisons. Stroud v. United States,

251 U.S. 15, 21 (1919). (No expectation of privacy for

letters mailed by inmate at Leavenworth penitentiary. )

Accordingly, there is a firmly grounded reasonable ex-

pectation that this envelope type of mail is secure from

intrusion. As a result thereof, only the warrant pro-

cedure of the Fourth Amendment could effect a lawful

seizure. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Appellate support for this view is found in United States

v. Doe, supra, at 985.

Furthermore, the recent cases of Almeida-Sanchez v.

United States, 418 U.S. 266 (1973) and United States

v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249 (1970) have greatly

slowed down, we submit, border search powers. In Al-

meida-Sanchez, petitioner was stopped by a border patrol

in the United States some 25 air miles from the Mexican

border and marihuana was found. The Court reversed

the conviction. over four dissents. In considering the

border search concept the Court stated:

“Whatever the permissible scope of intrusiveness

of a routine border search might be, searches of this

kind may, in certain circumstances, take place not only

at the border itself, but at its functional equiva-

lents as well. For example, searches at an established

station near the border, at a point making the con-

fluence of two or more roads that extend from the

border, might be functional equivalents of border

searches. For another example, a search of the pas-

sengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St.

Louis airport after a nonstop flight from Mexico

City would clearly be the functional equivalent of a

border search.

* + * ot

It is not enough to argue as does the Government,

that the problem of deterring unlawful entry by

aliens across long expanses of national boundaries

is a serious one. The needs of law enforcement

stand in constant tension with the Constitution’s

protections of the individual against certain exer-

cises of official power. It is precisely the predict-

ability of these pressures that counsels a resolute

loyalty to constitutional safeguards.”

Following Almeida-Sanchez, the Court in United States

v. Speed, 489 F.2d 478 (Fifth Cir. 1973) observed:

““Almeida-Sanchez, if it has not answered all the

questions about this area of the law, has at least

given new focus to the inquiries. We must now ask

if a search occurred either at the border or at the

functional equivalent thereof. If not, then it is not

a border search.

In other words, the searching officers must know

or have a reasonable suspicion that the very individ-

ual or thing to be searched has itself just crossed

the border.” (Emphasis supplied).

In United States v. Hamilton, 490 F.2d 598 (9th Cir.

1974),

“At about 4:30 p.m. on the day in question one

Fernan, a Border Patrol agent was informed by a

previously demonstrated reliable informant that a

truck, which he pointed out to him parked across

the street from the Customs Agency in Calexico,

California, had marihuana concealed in a false com-

partment in the body bed.”

The truck had previously entered from Mexico at 2:30

p.m. When another agent looked out the window it was

gone and a general call was sent out. At about 6:30 p.m.

government agents recognized the truck and searched it.

The Court held that this was not the functional equiva-

lent of a border search. ‘We merely note, in passing,

that this is not a case of a short hiatus after suspicion

has been aroused.”

In United States v. Van Leeuwen, supra., respondent

was convicted of illegally importing gold coins from Can-

ada. He mailed two 12-pound packages at the post office

in Mt. Vernon, Washington a town 60 miles from the

Canadian border. One package was addressed to Cali-

fornia and the other one to Tennessee. Respondent’s car

bore British Columbia license plates. “Other evidence

showed that respondent had brought the two packages

in from Canada without declaring them.” Interestingly,

a customs agent thereafter obtained a search warrant for

the packages without first inspecting them. The Court

held that the 29 hour delay in obtaining the warrant was

reasonable under the investigative circumstances present.

The Court applied Fourth Amendment requirements for

an inspection of the packages even though they had been

taken across the Canadian border. The Court did not

seek to justify the seizure under border search concepts.

“The nature and weight of the packages, the ficti-

tious return address, and the British Columbia li-

cense plates of respondent who made the mailings in

this border town certainly justified detention with-

out a warrant while an investigation was made.”

“The significant Fourth Amendment interest was in

the privacy of this first-class mail; and that privacy

was not disturbed or invaded until the approval of

the magistrate was obtained.”

The case can be read to indicate that once an individ-

ual or his packages are within the confines of our borders

for any appreciable time (here 60 miles, an hour and

one-half drive) a border search or functional equivalent

thereof is not permissible. In balancing the interests,

however, the Court allowed for a lengthy detention with-

out search of the packages to enable a proper warrant to

be obtained.

The instant initial search, as we understand-the law,

is, therefore, invalid for two reasons.

1. The Fourth Amendment protects all letter type

first class mail from searches without warrants whether

mailed internally or externally. The so-called border |

search concept was an offshoot of the necessity to act

quickly when the individual and his vehicle at a border

would soon be gone. No such justification exists herein,

where the mail was in the custody and control of the

postal authorities and the agents had ample time to apply

for a search warrant.

2. Regardless of initial application of the border

search concept to these letters, once they were in the

custody and control of the postal authorities for any

appreciable period at the initial point of entry, the full

force and effect of the Fourth Amendment came into play

and a search warrant was required before any inspec-

tion could occur.

In addition to the recent cases just cited for this propo-

sition, Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154 (1925)

long ago indicated that result.

“Travellers may be so stopped in crossing an in-

ternational boundary because of national self protec-

tion requiring one entering the country to identify

himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings

and effects which may lawfully brought in. But

those lawfully within the country, (first class mail),

entitled to use the public highways, have a right to

free passage without interruption or search unless

there is known to a competent official authorized to

search, probable cause. . .”.

Apparently, the agents herein were advised of the con-

stitutional error in opening the envelopes initially, and

attempted to cover up that transgression by obtaining a

search warrant for them on February 12, 1974; that,

however, was too late.

Accordingly, we seek to suppress the envelopes, their

contents, and all evidence subsequently tainted by the

initial unlawful search and seizure. Silverthorne Lumber

Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).

Wherefore, it is respectfully submitted that the instant

motion be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Allan M. Palmer

ALLAN M. PALMER

1707 N. Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

785-3900

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was per-

sonally served on the Office of the U.S. Attorney this

4 day of October, 1974.

/s/ Allan M. Palmer

ALLAN M. PALMER

[3] MOTION TO SUPPRESS TRANSCRIPT

PROCEEDINGS

MR. REARDON: The government will call George

Kallnischkies.

He will spell his name for the court reporter.

GEORGE KALLNISCHKIES

called to the witness stand on behalf of the government,

being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. REARDON: e

Q Sir, will you please give the Court your full name

and please spell it slowly for the court reporter?

A George Kallnischkies. K-A-L-L-N-I-S-C-H-K-I-E-S.

Q And how are you employed, sir?

A I am employed by the U.S. Customs Service, Re-

gion 2, New York City.

Q How long have you been employed in that capacity.

A June 20, 1964.

Q Would you please recount for the Court your re-

sponsibilities in that regard?

A My main responsibility is to examine incoming

foreign mail, letter class mail, to see if it contains any

dutiable merchandise, contraband or narcotics, and other

prohibited matters.

Q How long have you specifically been performing

that [4] task?

A About eight or nine years..

Q Are you in a supervisory position?

A Yes, sir.

Q How many people work under you, sir?

A I have nine people working at the General Post

Office and I have nine people working at the Kennedy

Airport.

Q And what class mail do you handle?

A As I said before, we work strictly on letter class

mail. Packages go to a different customs section that

will examine large packages.

Q What is letter class mail?

A Well, letter class mail includes envelopes matter,

newspapers and book packages and so on.

Q Are your inspections restricted to those items com-

ing from without the country?

A Yes, from abroad.

Q Do you also inspect domestic mail?

A No, sir.

Q Could you explain whether in fact there exists first

class mail coming to this country from another country?

A No, sir, it is considered letter class mail, sealed

mail, but it is not first class mail.

First class mail is only domestic mail, sir.

[5] Q In the course of your inspections of letter class

mail coming into this country from without, could you

explain to the Court and Counsel what is the ordinary

procedures which you will undertake for this task?

A First of all, mail will—we are talking here about

airmail in particular and it will come into Kennedy

Airport and from there it will be routed to the various

post offices and in this particular case to the General

Post Office.

The airmail sacks still intact will go into the Registry

Division and they will remove registered mail from it,

valuable mail, and other mail from certain designated

countries that U.S. Customs would like to examine will

be routed to me.

Q Do you also inspect registered mail coming into

the U.S.?

A Yes, we do.

Q Is that given a different classification than letter

class mail?

A It would still be letter class mail. The only thing

is that it is considered registered and it is accountable.

Q What does that mean? Would you explain that?

A There is a record kept from the time it is seized

until the time it is delivered and the recipient signs for

it.

Q Directing your attention to the date of February 4

[6] of this year, do you recall whether you were working

on that date?

A Yes, sir, I was.

Q Where were you working specifically?

A Working in the General Post Office in New York

City.

Q Did you have occasion to inspect any letter class

mail coming into the United States on that day?

A Yes, sir, I did.

Q Could you explain what your procedures were that

particular day?

A The procedures were the same as every day. Mail

comes in and—a foreign airmail sack and mail gets

dumped on a conveyor belt and there the mail is being

separated, processed by a postal employee and they will

tray-out letter class mail letters in trays and they will

separate newspapers and they will separate little pack-

ages, they separate special delivery mail and that will be

given special handling and while they are doing it or

sometimes I am doing it or there present, we will separate

any mail that looks to us suspicious or believe it to contain

merchandise for further examination.

Q Did you do so in this case?

A Yes, sir, I did.

As a result of that inspection, what, if anything,

[7] did you find? |

A Well, I think I will have to be specific about what

we are talking about here, sir, because I find a lot of

stuff.

Q Let me rephrase that for you: Did you in fact

intercept any letters on the particular day that I gave

you?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you intercept any letters on that particular

date which were destined for the Washington area?

A Yes, sir.

Q How many of these? Do you have your report with

you?

A Well, I have a report here. We are talking about 8

envelopes that we are talking about right now, but I may

have had more. I really don’t know, sir.

co en

Q_ All right.

With regard to those 8 envelopes, how did you—how

did they come to your attention?

A Well, I was on the belt and these envelopes were

rather—from Bangkok, Thailand and they were rather

bulky and I believed them to contain merchandise and

what do I mean by merchandise?

Anything would be—anything that would be not paper,

correspondence, but could be possible narcotics or other

merchandise.

[8] Q What kind of postage did those letters have

on them?

A They had, as far as I can recall, Thailaneze postage

stamps.

Q Did you—do you inspect mail from all countries,

sir?

A_ No, certain countries.

Q Is Thailand one of those countries?

A Yes, sir.

Q In fact, did you have occasion to seize letters from

Thailand during this year, sir?

A Yes, I would say yes.

Q On how many occasions roughly?

A Well, prior to February 4, I can’t really tell you

how many we had, but as of now—as of the last day of

September, we had 48-envelopes containing heroin from

Thailand.

Q In regard to the eight envelopes addressed to the

Washington area, what did you do?

A_ I took them to a specific area that I have for ex-

amining the mail. I felt the envelopes and later on I

weighed one of the envelopes and it was like 42 grams

which is rather heavy for an airmail envelope.

Q Excuse me. How much is—how much does any

ordinary airmail envelope weigh?

A Well, an ordinary airmail envelope would weigh

about [9] 7 grams or a quarter of an ounce, or let’s

say 14 grams, a half ounce, but 42 grams which is an

ounce and a half is rather heavy.

Q I see.

A It also felt like there was something in there, in

the envelope. It was not just plain paper that the en-

velope is supposed to contain.

Then I took one of the envelopes and opened it. In

there I saw some cardboard and between the cardboard,

if I recall, there was a plastic bag containing a white

powdered substance, which, based on experience, I knew

from Thailand would be heroin.

I went ahead and removed a sample. Gave it a field

test, a Marquis Reagent field test, and I had a positive

reaction for heroin.

Q Does your record reflect which envelope you opened

first?

A No, sir, it does not.

Q What did you do with regard to the remaining

seven envelopes?

A Well, the envelopes in a lot of ways were identical.

Some of them had the same return address. They were

all typewritten and they came from the same area and

I proceeded to open the others.

Q Did you—could you explain for us whether in fact

these letters are considered to be first class mail?

[10} A No, sir, they are not.

Q Could you explain why?

A Because foreign mail from abroad is classified as

letter class mail and not first class mail.

Q_ All right.

A We have a regulation to that effect.

Q MR. REARDON: (Your Honor, may ! please have

this exhibit marked as government exhibit No. 1?

(Government exhibit No. 1 was marked for identifi-

cation.)

BY MR. REARDON:

Q I show you now what is marked as government 1

for identification. Do you know what that exhibit is?

A That is a part of the Code of Federal Regulations,

Chapter I, Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations

and Part 145.2 entitled “Mail Importations”.

Q Are you familiar with that?

A Yes, sir, I am.

Q How do they affect your job?

A Well, it says here, “all mail originating outside

the customs territory of the United States, whether sealed

or unsealed, is subject to customs examination” and so

on.

Do you want me to read all of that?

MR. REARDON: May I have the Court’s indulgence?

THE COURT: Yes.

[11] MR. REARDON: Your Honor, the government

has no further questions at this time.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. PALMER:

Q Now, the particular envelopes that you opened,

I take it you did not have a search warrant to open

those envelopes, is that correct?

A Yes, sir, because I didn’t need a search warrant

because the regulations specify that we can.

Q In other words, there was no search warrant to

open this mail?

A No search warrant issued.

Q Is that the customary procedure in New York City?

A We do it nation-wide, sir.

Q In other words, nation-wide, any mail could be

gone into that goes into the post office that comes from

without the country?

A Yes, sir.

Q That is always the same procedure? No search

warrant is necessary?

A Nosearch warrant is necessary.

Q Were you familiar, sir, that here in Washington,

D.C., in Washington, three envelopes directed to this

same address was seized pursuant to a search warrant

without postal inspectors first going into them?

{12} MR. REARDON: I object to that, Your Honor.

Counsel has—

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. He may

proceed.

BY MR. PALMER:

Q In other words, sir, did you know that in this

jurisdiction, Washington, a search warrant was obtained

for the envelopes before any intrusion was entered into

the letters?

MR. REARDON: I object to that, Your Honor, on the

grounds of relevancy.

THE COURT: Your objection is noted for the record,

and overruled.

BY MR. PALMER:

Q Did you know that, sir?

A No, sir, because if I may say, it is my job in New

York City to intercept any mail that I believe to contain

merchandise. I don’t know what is going on in Wash-

ington or any place.

After I intercept it, I just turn it over to the Drug

Enforcement Administration. I am not in an investiga-

tive capacity at all.

Q Thank you.

MR. PALMER: Would you mark this defendant’s

113] exhibit 1, this affidavit dated February 7, 1974,

which was given to me earlier by the government which

is an affidavit in fact for three similar letters in this

jurisdiction, which were obtained pursuant to search

warrant prior to any nonwarranted intrusion.

THE COURT: For what purpose is it offered?

MR. PALMER: To show what the government

thought proper in the Washington jurisdiction as to the

necessity for a search warrant.

THE COURT: It will be marked as part of the

record.

(Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 marked for identifica-

tion)

MR. REARDON: I will object for the record, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Your objection is noted.

BY MR. PALMER:

Q These particular 8 envelopes and by the way. do

you have a picture of them?

A I took some Zerox copies of the outside of the

envelopes, yes.

Q Do you have those with you?

A Yes, sir.

Q May I see them?

A Yes. As a matter of fact, I have all the records

pertaining to what we are talking here about.

[14] MR. PALMER: Does counsel for the government

have an additional copy?

MR. REARDON: Yes, I have a copy. I can give coun-

sel a copy. I don’t have an additional copy for the Court

at this time. I could pass mine up. I will pass this up so

the Court may follow the testimony.

BY MR. PALMER:

e, Do you have copies here of each of the eight let-

ters

A Yes, I do.

MR. PALMER: Would Your Honor indulge me a

moment? I have not seen this before.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. REARDON: Might I note for the record that

the Customs officer brought that to the office when he

came down here from New York.

_ PALMER: Does Your Honor have a complete

set !

THE COURT: I don’t know if it is complete, but

it is a set supplied to me by the government.

MR. REARDON: That is the set that was given to

me.

THE COURT: It appears to be a 20-page document.

MR. PALMER: This is defendant’s exhibit No. 2.

(Defendant’s exhibit No. 2 marked for identifica-

tion)

[15] BY MR. PALMER:

Q Now, these 8 envelopes, were they taken by you all

at the same time off of the conveyor belt, so-to-speak?

A More or less. The times are indicated on the upper

righthand corner at what time I processed these en-

velopes and they were assigned seizure numbers.

Q Would these notes help you in your recollection?

A Yes, sir, these are my only records, sir.

Q Now, sir, when were these envelopes mailed in

Thailand?

A That I don’t know. I don’t pay any attention to

that.

Q Is there any way you can determine that from

looking?

A Perhaps I could. I don’t know. It is hard to make

out now. There is a postage cancellation stamp. It is

30.0.17 on one of them.

Q Excuse me.

. A 30.1.17 which would be the 30th of January and

17 would probably be the time of the day. The same

thing on here.

If I may say so, judging, you know, on this—

Q Based on your experience.

A Based on my experience, they were intercepted on

{16} February 4 and it was naturally mailed sometime in

January, but one of the stamps indicates the 30th of

January. That would be about the right time.

Q Now, are these letter type envelopes, were they

airmail?

A Yes, sir.

Q_ They carried the right postage?

A That I don’t know. I am a Customs official and not

a post office official. I don’t pay attention to what they

—what the postage is.

Q Does it indicate that they do not carry the right

postage?

A Not as far as I know.

Q Now, where did these envelopes first arrive in this

country?

A’ Well, I wasn’t there when they arrived. I assume

that it was at Kennedy Airport.

Q And when did they arrive?

A That I do not know either.

Q Who would know exactly when these envelopes

actually reached our territory?

A Well, I guess if somebody wanted to trace the

receipt of mail, it would be the Postal Inspection Service,

but since these letters were not registered, ordinary air-

mail, [17] there is no record being kept. Nobody could

be specific as to when they entered the country.

Q Now, after arriving at JFK, how do they come

into the country?

A_ I actually do not get involved in this, this proce-

dure, but I have an idea as to how it does arrive. Are

you interested in that?

Q Yes.

A All right. It would come on an airplane and it

would get unloaded on to a post office truck and routed

into the post office building at the Kennedy Airport. There

they would make a distribution and if an airmail sack

is addressed to New York, New York, it would remain in

New York to be worked.

If it says Chicago, Illinois, it would be rerouted in

another airplane and leave.

Q Now, the mail, for example, these eight pieces,

when they arrive at their first point which is probably

JFK, Kennedy Airport, that is also New York City, is

that correct, sir?

A Yes.

ane And at that point, there are Customs agent there

A No, there are not. You see mail is—goes first in-

to the post office. The post office will refer the mail to

the [18] U.S. Customs Service for examination.

Q So at the first point of entry, there are no Cus-

toms personnel to examine the mail?

A No, sir.

Now, from there, JFK, for example, these letters

would go where next?

A Well, some of the mail will be worked at Kennedy

and some of the mail will be worked at the General Post

Office depending how the airmail sack is labeled.

Like if it says New York City, it will come into New

York City. It will be worked at the General Post Office.

If it just indicates New York, New York, it will remain

there and will be worked off there.

Now, these particular eight envelopes, where did

they go from JFK?

A Well, that sack went into the General Post Office.

Q And do you know when that sack arrived at the

General Post Office?

A No, sir, I don’t know that.

Q Do you have any idea normally how long it takes

to go from JFK to the General Post Office?

A I would say if it arrives in the morning, it prob-

ably would arrive there at the General Post Office the

same day, sometime in the afternoon. I really don’t know.

It depends on a lot of things.

{19} It depends on, traffic, weather, whether it is rain-

ing or not and what the backup is. What the backup of

mail is.

Q. All right.

Now, do you know as a fact that these eight pieces

first arrived in the California area and then rerouted to

New York. Do you know that?

A No chance. They would have been worked over

there.

Q They would have been worked in that area?

A Right.

Now, did—

MR. REARDON: I am sorry. I did not hear the an-

swer.

(The answer was read)

BY MR. PALMER:

Q Now, when these eight letters arrived, I take it

you were stationed at the—

A At the General Post Office.

Q Is that in Manhattan?

A Yes, sir.

Q Foley Square?

A No, Manhattan across from the Penn Station,

Madison Square Gardens.

Q_ AN right.

{20} And what happened to this mail when it arrived

there?

A Well, as I said before, the mail came into the buiid-

ing and probably went into the Registery Section, and

the seal on the sack was broken and the registered mail

was removed because they have to count the pieces that

are registered and then the remaining mail was sent to

my section for examination, the ordinary mail.

I received the sack, dumped the sack out and processed

the mail and we discovered these envelopes.

Q Now, prior to you discovering each of these en-

- velopes you had no knowledge of these envelopes in re-

lation to Thailand or Germany or anything like that,

did you?

A I—

Q You had no prior information about this case, did

you?

A No, sir.

Q This was the first time that this came to your

attention, these envelopes?

A Yes, sir.

Q You had seen—to your recollection, these addresses

mailed to this country, you had not noticed them before?

A Nothing.

Q This was sort of a first time spot check as to these

eight envelopes?

[21] A Well, if I may correct you, it is not a spot

check. It is a normal procedure that we have. We will

= certain countries and we will really scrutinize

em.

Q Allright. We will get to that.

In any event, to get to my original point, insofar as

these eight envelopes are concerned, you had no prior

information at all concerning these eight envelopes?

A Right.

Q Now, I believe you indicated that there were cer-

tain countries that you are associated with or concerned

with, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q I assume Thailand is one of them?

A Yes, sir.

Q And other Southeast Asia areas?

A Yes, sir. South America and Columbia, for in-

stance, you know.

As I indicated before, we work the mails for various

reasons. We have matter, pornography, for instance,

which is prohibited by law and we enforce postal laws

which prohibit the imporation of lottery mail, Irish

Sweepstakes and so on.

We receive counterfeit money from Columbia which

is also prohibited. Cocaine from there which is pro-

hibited.

[22] We receive heroin from Thailand based on our

experience.

Q Now, was it the entire sack of mail that was de-

livered to you?

A Yes, sir.

Q And the entire sack of mail was—

A Yes, we worked it off our distribution. It gets

worked off and it goes—geis trayed out and goes to a

section where postal employees will box up the mail and

it gets delivered.

Q Was all this mail from Thailand?

A Yes, that was all mail from one particular country,

from Thailand, in that sack, yes, but we were working

other countries too.

Q I understand that. But this particular sack was

mail from Thailand?

A Yes, sir.

Q_ All right.

—s

Q And approximately how many pieces of mail were

within that sack?

A I don’t have the slightest idea, sir. I don’t pay

any attention to that.

Q Do you know, for example, whether—

A Well, for one thing, Thailand is not a big country.

[23] Therefore, there was not that much mail from that

country.

Q In other words, could these have been the only

eight envelopes—

A No, sir, we had definitely more. Maybe we had

200 or 500 envelopes from that particular country.

Q Now, the normal procedure I believe you indicated

was to do what?

A Thailand or any other mail we examine, we dump

it out and on the conveyor belt and the mail is just loose

and you have newspapers, books and you have small

packages that are dutiable and so on and we have these

different separations and while doing so, if there is

anything that is not a package—a package will go to

a certain Customs section for examination as to con-

tents, but letters normally gets processed but if you feel

a letter may also contain merchandise, we will put it

aside, for example.

Q Now, the particular letters we have here that are

marked as an exhibit, this is considered letter mail? Is

that correct? ,

A Yes.

Q Airmail letter class mail?

A Yes, sir.

Q And such mail of this particular type if it were

mailed within this country, is that the same equivalent

as first class mail?

[24] A To my understanding, yes, sir, in the United

States it is considered first class mail.

Q_ All right.

As far as you know, this particular eight envelopes,

to your knowledge, carried correct airmail postage? Any

signs of postage due or anything?

THE COURT: He said he doesn’t know. He has al-

ready answered that.

THE WITNESS: You know, I don’t collect the post-

age. I am there to examine the mail.

BY MR. PALMER:

Q Now, on the face of each one of these envelopes,

did there appear to be so-called letter mail, as you looked

at the envelope?

A Yes, sir, these are letters. They are various sizes

like six and three-quarter inches by five and we have

eight and a half by four and a quarter inches.

Those are the various sizes that we have.

Q Now, you indicated that you took one of them

and opened up the envelope?

A Weil, first of all, { examined the envelope from

the outside because, you know, there is so much mail

coming through that I just don’t open mail without

having a good reason to open it.

[25] I felt the envelope and it was rather bulky. I felt

it by feeling it and I said to myself there is something

else in there besides just plain paper, which is corres-

pondence. Then I proceeded to open the envelope, yes,

sir.

Q After having opened the first one, having done

that, you went and examined and opened the other seven

also?

A Well, they were identical. They looked as if they

came—this is just my impression, but they looked like

they came from the same place and so they did have a

different return address.

One was New Star Studio and the other one had

Corngold Jewelry Shop but they all looked like they

came from the same typewriter.

MR. PALMER: Will Your Honor indulge me for

one moment?

THE COURT: Certainly.

We will take a five-minute recess.

MR. PALMER: Thank you.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

BY MR. PALMER:

Q Now, sir, other than the fact that it is not your

normal procedure to do so, as you have indicated; were—

there any rules or regulations to prevent, if you so de-

sired, to prevent you from keeping these envelopes in

your custody during [26] the time in which a warrant

could have been obtained to open them up?

A I don’t—

MR. REARDON: Your Honor, I don’t think I un-

derstand that question.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

BY MR. PALMER:

Q Did you—

THE COURT: He has told you that it was not nec-

essary. He has answered that question.

MR. PALMER: I understand that, Your Honor. I

am getting to something.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. PALMER:

Q You indicated that normally your procedure, the

Customs procedure, is not to obtain warrants, but to go

into the mail coming into the country?

A Right.

Q Was there any rule or regulation whatever to pre-

vent you from keeping this mail in your custody while a

warrant could be obtained for it?

MR. REARDON: I will object to that question.

THE COURT: That is speculative and hypothetical.

He has testified that that is not required.

[27] The objection is sustained.

BY MR. PALMER:

Q Now, after this sack of mail from Thailand was

dumped and sorted out, you indicated that you opened

first, after looking at it, one of these eight envelopes, is

that right?

A Yes, I had to open one first. .

Q At the time when you opened the first envelope,

were you aware of the other seven?

A Yes, well, we had already culled out the envelopes

that all appeared bulky and so we had—took them all

aside and then I had to open one of them.

You were asking me before which one was opened

first. I can give you that answer now. I have the time

stamp when different envelopes were processed so, you

know, I can give you that.

Q@ When was the first one opened?

A One was opened at 1:30. Well, I guess the one

to Miss Shirley Hill was opened first. It was opened at

1:30 p.m.

Q One-thirty p.m.?

A Yes.

Q And that mail would have arrived at the post of-

fice about what time, sir?

A Sir, that mail would have arrived on Saturday—

could have arrived on Saturday or Sunday because Mon-

day was— [28] well, there is a shortage of work force

on the weekend and mail just gets held.

Pm. The day it was opened, I take it, was February

A February 4 was a Monday.

Q And this particular mail could have been there as

long as from Saturday, is that correct?

A It could have, but not very likely because mail

doesn’t lay around that long. If it came in Sunday—as

I said, it could have been Saturday.

Q Or it could have been Sunday?

A Right.

Q Or it could have been Monday morning?

A Monday morning from Kennedy Airport to arrive

at the General Post Office would be too fast, not at 1:30.

It was not Monday’s mail. It must have been Sunday’s.

Q This mail then arrived at the General Post Office

at the latest on Sunday, is that right?

A At the latest, yes.

Q At the earliest on perhaps Saturday?

A Right.

es Oe es 5

Q Not on Monday? .

A No, not on Monday.

Q Fine. Thank you.

Now, do you have Customs people working there. on

Saturday and Sunday?

{29} A Not in the particular operation that I have,

the letter class examination of mail. We work Monday

through Friday.

Q The other two days, Saturday and Sunday are the

days off?

A The mail will be held aside, you know, and we

come in Monday and we will work it.

Q Now, prior to this date of 4 February, 1974, dur-

ing the course of your duties as a postal inspector and

examiner of these items, had you prior to this date, in-

tercepted and recovered narcotics from the mail from

Thailand?

A I think so. I am pretty sure. I think we had

some mail going into New -York City originating in

Thailand and therefore, based on that particular experi-

ence, we. scrutinize mail from Thailand very carefully

after that date and so I guess the mail arriving into

New York City was prior to that.

Q Now, the prior experience or the incident that you

speak about, was that a personal experience that you

had or one that your subordinates had at the post office

in New York?

A Well, I don’t know how to interpret it. It is my

personal experience if I discover narcotics in mail origi-

nating from a certain country that—well, I will scruti-

nize that mail more closely than—

Q That is not clear in my mind, sir. The prior [30]

experience that you had with narcotics from Thailand

on the earlier occasion, you believe there was such an

experience?

A I think so.

Q Now, that prior experience, was one that you per-

sonally had in uncovering the narcotics yourself?

A Yes, sir, I am the only one opening that mail. I

am the one that examines it.

Q I was not clear on that point.

Prior: to the experience on the 4th of February, you

believe that happened on one occasion or more than one

occasion?

A I would say more: than one.

Q So at least by the time of February 4, you were

generally suspicious of letter mail coming from Thailand

as a fact?

A Yes, sir.

Q And all mail so coming in from Thailand generally,

you have this fact that raises a suspicion in your mind,

is that correct, sir?

A Yes, sir.

Q I take it during the course of your regular duties,

duties over the period of time indicated, that this par-

ticular airmail item appeared heavier in weight than

most airmail letters, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

[31] Q I take it during the course of your experience

that airmail letters that have come in have also met the,

for example, 42 gram standard?

A Oh, yes.

Q And on occasion you opened some of those, is that

correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q And found no contraband, is that correct?

A No contraband, not dutiable merchandise, yes, sir.

Q_ All right.

So the 42 or the heavier weight caused you to go

further because this was in fact Thailand which you

generally have suspicions of at the beginning?

A It was—

Q The weight caused you to go further to the next

procedure, is that correct?

A Yes, sir, the weight—If I may say, something else.

Q Surely.

A It is the—it is possible that in the past I had

received similar envelopes this size or something. It is

not necessary just the weight. You sometimes get nar-

cotics today and then a month from now, from that

47°

same country, you get another shipment and you say,

I already got that because you [32] recognize that, some

similarity, but the weight in itself would make me

check it.

Q Raise a suspicion?

A Yes, sir.

Q In other words, is it fair to categorize this as in-

tuition or intuitive?

A Yes, sir.

Q_ All right.

Now, you then—

MR. REARDON: Your Honor, I just want to, for

the record, counsel is now—perhaps this is better left

for argument, but counsel is characterizing—trying to

raise an opinion from a man but the facts of the case in

terms of art and the repetition of 42 grams is not es-

sential.

MR. PALMER: Your Honor, I would say in my re-

view of the case, this is an important factor. ;

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. PALMER: Thank you.

BY MR. PALMER:

And then this first letter you felt it?

Yes, sir.

And it appeared to be—what did it appear to be?

It appeared to be bulky. As I said before, it later

turned out to weigh approximately 42 grams which is

an ounce and a half. It was just a bulky envelope that

I felt contained something.

{33] You know, if you wanted me to be specific, based

on my experience, I would say this is Thailand and pos-

sibly heroin.

Q Now, when you felt the outside of the envelope,

it was—you said the material was covered by a card-

board?

A Yes, I am referring to my notes. The heroin was

contained in one glassine bag that was placed between

two pieces of cardboard.

>PO>o

'Q So when you felt the outside, you felt a hard card-

board substance?

A Yes, but on the other hand, if you have enough

experience as I have, it is a white powdered substance

and it does move. It doesn’t stay flat. You shake the

envelope and it fails into one particular spot. You know

there is something in it. It just moves. It is not the

cardboard you feel alone.

Normally we would just feel the cardboard. It is very

difficult to feel through the cardboard, but you shake it

a little and it moves.

Q How about in this particular case?

A I can’t recall that at this time. I am just talking

from general experience.

I think this is probably what happened.

Q Try to recollect the facts a. they occurred. I un-

derstand your problem. Try to recollect this particular

case, [34] what happened in this case.

You indicated you felt it and you could feel the card-

board?

A Yes.

Q Do you know if in fact you felt anything else?

A Well, sir, I really didn’t say that I felt the card-

board. I just felt it was bulky. There is something in

there I can’t tell whether it is cardboard or any other

wrapping.

You can’t say you felt it to be powder or anything

like that? The essential thing was the bulky feeling?

A Yes.

MR. REARDON: He said it all went to one side.

MR. PALMER: He didn’t say that.

THE COURT: Let the witness speak for himself.

MR. REARDON: I just wanted to make my objec-

tion for the record.

THE WITNESS: Well, sir, this dates back to Febru-

ary when I intercepted this and I intercept so many that

I can’t remember exactly what I did in that particular

case, but the normal procedure is for me, from a certain

country, weight of the envelope, bulkiness and then if the

contents move, I feel it and if it moves, I know there

is something in there that is not correspondence. It is

a es

- 49

merchandise and I have to open it to check it out.

[35] I didn’t know what was in there.

BY MR. PALMER:

Q And you said the main fact—strike that, Your

Honor.

Now, sir, appreximately how many pieces of mail do

you open a day in that section? ‘

A That is very difficult to tell too because it de- |

pends on how many narcotics, narcotic interceptions you

make in one day.

If you have narcotic interceptions, which you have to

open very carefully, you have to field test it and replace

the contents back and all this. You have to make a

record. You really can’t process that many.

} you don’t have it, you can work several hundred

a day.

Q You might open 700 pieces of mail a day?

A Several.

Q Are you opening them in this fashion?

A Well, I do so many things. We have pornography.

We have lottery. I do all these things and I didn’t al-

ways open but they are also interceptions. I can’t give

you a definite figure.

Q I realize that. Approximately a couple hundred

are opened? Approximately a couple hundred are opened

a day by [36] yourself?

A Yes, possibly.

Q And of these couple hundred that are opened a

day, approximately, what percentage contains contraband?

A Idon’t know. I don’t keep a record.

Q Are many of the envelopes you open not subject

to scrutiny?

A Well, some of them are not suspect seizure. If I

may give you an example and if I get a mail article

from a country and you want me to specify, I will say

from Mexico and we know that Mexico is sending in

marihuana through the mails, and I feel it and it feels

like marihuana I open it and it turns out to be a hair

net. That I could not tell from the outside. I have to

open it to determine what is dutiable or contraband.

Q And that happens on many occasions, doesn’ t it?

A It does happen, yes.

All right.

MR. PALMER: Will Your Honor indulge me?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. PALMER: I have nothing further of this wit-

ness.

MR. STEIN: I have a few questions, Your Honor.

BY MR. STEIN:

[37] Q I think you indicated—I think I will call you

Mr. K and that your employees stopped working on Fri-

day and come back to work on Monday. Is that correct?

A Yes, we close the section. |

Q Is that your schedule as well?

A That is my schedule. The post office normally. will

work all seven days, but since I am not present and we

are dealing in this type of mail; for various reasons, |

have to be present when this mail gets worked.

Q You work five days a week?

A Yes.

Q So when you were discussing before or trying to

ascertain how long these particular envelopes may have

been in the post office, I think the range was from early

Saturday until Sunday?

A That is right.

Q How about Monday morning?

A Not Monday morning because—

Q Is it also possible then as early as late Friday or

a time when you might go home, there would be some

pieces left over?

A You see, on Friday it is our procedure, you know,

we have our schedule arranged in such a way that when

we leave on Friday, whatever mail is present in our

particular working area [38] or section, it gets worked

out.

Q Isthat always the case?

A Not always.

Sometimes stuff is left over?

Yes.

You don’t kow if that is the case here or not? .

In most instances we don’t have any mail left over.

You referred several times of opening up this

mail, various types of mail.

Will you describe how that is done? How do you open

an envelope?

A Well, I try to be very careful in opening an en-

velope. |

Do I have to tell you in detail how I do that?

MR. STEIN: Your Honor, I think th’. is a really

important question. It goes to the invasion of privacy

issue. I think how they do it, why they do it, can be very

OPO PO

’ jmportant.

THE COURT: If you think it is important, you may

proceed.

MR.STEIN: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Well, I usually have a very primi-

tive tool, an ice pick and I just peal the flap open very

carefully and remove the contents and examine them and

like in this [39] particular case, it goes up for control

delivery and I reseal it as carefully as I open it.

BY MR. STEIN:

Q In other words, you try to open the gum area?

A Oh, yes, I do not take the knife and cut it.

Q And if there is no contraband of any kind, you

would reseal that gum, is that correct?

A I would reseal the gum and indicate it has been

examined by Customs.

Q How would you do that?

A We have a stamp.

Q So the person that eventually gets this mail, knows

that you searched the mail?

A Yes.

Now, you mentioned the fact that you roughly

went through 200 pieces of mail a day, an average day,

opened them up, is that right?

A On some days, 206 and some days just a few. May-

be I didn’t understand. An examination doesn’t neces-

sarily mean ‘that I will open every envelope. I may ex-

amine it just by touching and looking at it. I am not

going to open every piece.

Q You don’t use your ice pick every time—

A Oh, no.

How many times a day do you use your ice pick,

roughly?

[40] A Well, I have had instances where I intercepted

78 envelopes containing narcotics, heroin, cocaine and

then all 78 had been opened. Maybe a few more than

that, maybe ten or fifteen envelopes that turn out to be,

as I said before, either a hair net or sand from a beach in

Jamaica that felt like a powder and it turned out to be

sand from Jamaica.

Now, you indicated a stamp indicating the fact

that it had been opened by an official?

A Yes.

Q A rubber stamp that you put on personally?

A Well, I don’t necessarily o that personally.

Q Somebody does?

A Yes.

About how many of those are stamped a day or

is there a record of that?

A No record kept.

Q Well, these would be the ones where no contraband

is found and where your suspicion was not borne out,

is that right?

A True.

Q Would it be fair to say that would be in the

majority of the ones that you open?

A Well, that is difficult to say. On some days it

would be the majority and on some days, not. Like

in this [41] particular case we had on that particular

date, these envelopes were eight coming in and they all

looked suspicious and they all turned out to contain

heroin.

On that particular day, processing took quite some

time. If it was in the afternoon, it probably took that

eee ciara 60 eae od

A tne Anse Ee he meen! —

ee ee ee een

afternoon. I probably didn’t do anything else but process

these eight envelopes. It is difficult for me to answer.

Q I understand that. But it is not improbable that

every day before you opened one of these envelopes, you

already stamped or somebody caused to be stamped, many

envelopes where there was no contraband?

MR. REARDON: Your Honor, I will object to that.

THE COURT: Objection is overruled.

BY MR. STEIN:

You don’t use any sort of X-ray device?

In this particular section, no.

You do not.

I do not.

And the final question I would have is that I think

you said one of the reasons you said you were suspicious

was because it didn’t feel 'ike there was correspondence

or letters in the envelopes. Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q_ All right.

[43] Q Now, in enforcing certain regulations, among

them is there one which makes it illegal to put some-

thing in an envelope other than correspondence?

A Well, in an—.

Q Is one requiredto correspond, is what I am saying,

when they send a letter from another country into the

United States?

A What I meant to say is that if there is paper in

there, writing correspondence, then I know there is no

merchandise in there and in this particular case I felt

there was something in there. I had to check that out.

MR.STEIN: I have no further questions.

MR. REARDON: Just one or two.

OPO PO

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. REARDON:

Q Sir, would you please describe the conditions of

the envelopes, these eight pertinent envelopes, that you

saw and examined on the day in question; that is, was

there any indication that they had been opened before?

p A No, sir, those envelopes had not been opened be-

ore.

Q Why do you say that?

A Well, if the envelopes had been opened or if the

envelopes had been damaged somehow, I would have

made a notation in my records on that. I know and

testify enough in court that [44] these questions will be

asked of me. |

I make a record to that effect. I didn’t and so there-

fore I say no. .

MR. REARDON: No other questions.

THE COURT: You may step down.

THE COURT: In consideration of the motion to sup-

press tangible evidence, the opposition to the motion, the

review of the authorities, after argument of counsel and

the testimony of Mr. George Kallnischkies, the United -

States Customs Official from New York City, the motion

to suppress the tangible evidence is denied.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Criminal Case No. 623-74

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Vv.

CHARLES W. RAMSEY, ET AL.

ORDER

After having reviewed carefully both the written mo-

tion of defendant Ramsey to suppress certain physical

evidence in this case seized by United States customs

officials on February 4, 1974, as well as the written

opposition of the Government, and

Further, having heard and considered fully the oral

argument of both parties in this matter, it is now this

lst day of November, 1974,

ORDERED, that ‘the motion of defendant Ramsey to

suppress the physical evidence seized by United States

customs officials on February 4, 1974, is hereby denied.

/s/ [Tllegible }

Judge

EXCERPTS FROM THE STIPULATION AT TRIAL

SECTION V; EVIDENCE RE: RELEVANT EVENTS OF

FEBRUARY 2 — FEBRUARY 15, 1974

This Section concerns events from the date of the

February 2, 1974, arrests of Bailey and Ward in

Bangkok, Thailand, through the arrests of Ramsey

and Kelly in Washington, D.C., including: the inde-

pendent interdiction by customs authorities of eight

letters filled with pure heroin in New York City on

February 4, 1974; the interception of three more

such envelopes at the main Post Office in Washing-

ton, D. C., on February 7, 1974; the subsequent sur-

veillance on three local addresses on February 12,

February 13, and February 14, 1974; and the perti-

nent seizures made incident to Ramsey’s and Kelly’s

arrests, both on February 14 and February 15, 1974.

A. Evidence surrounding the interception of eight

letters in New York on February 4, 1974.

On February 2, 1974, after Bailey and Ward had been

arrested and certain evidence seized, (see Section IV,

supra) Agent George Shoaf composed a cable in order

to notify the National Headquarters of the Drug En-

forcement Administration of the recent Thai develop-

ments. This cable was received by the Drug Enforce-

ment Administration in Washington, D. C., on February

4, 1974.

Contemporaneously and independently on this same

date in New York City, Customs Officer George Kallin-

ischkies (see transcript of Motion to Suppress on October

1974, at page ) intercepted and seized eight enve-

lopes addressed to four D.C. area locations (Government

Exhibits No. , , ~ ,) from the mail. In accordance

with his training and duties, he then performed a field

test on a small portion of the white powder enclosed in

each of the envelopes. The positive results of these pre-

liminary chemical tests indicated the presence of heroin

in each envelope. Mr. Kallinischkies thereafter at the

request of the Drug Enforcement Administration initi-

ated the controlled delivery which was to be executed on

February 14, 1974, in Washington, D.C. He placed the

eight envelopes in a special mail pouch and secured it

with a rotary type lock number R 88592-81. Access to

a jock of this type is limited to few Postal Office Em-

ployees. The pouch itself was placed inside another iron

locked container and sent on its otherwise normal course

to Washington, D.C.

On February 5, 1974, Agents John Atlee and John

Landrum received the identities of the D.C. area ad-

dresses and addressees listed on the eight intercepted

envelopes. Two envelopes were sent to each of the follow-

ing addresses:

1.) Continental Printing Company

1125 D St., N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20002

2.) Miss Mary Richardson

311 Rock Creek Church Rd., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20011

3.) Miss Shirley Hill

5109 Mann

Deanwood, Maryland 20027

4.) Miss D. Kelly

1622 Perry St., N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20018

“1125 D St., N.E.” has already been discussed, supra, in

Sections I, III, and IV. Reference to “311 Rock Creek

Church Rd., N.W.” similarly is found, supra, in Sections

I and Section IV. Government witness Charles Adams,

who has resided at this address since December 10, 1973,

has no knowledge of the existence of the purported ad-

dressee “Mary Richardson.” Mr. Mark Coppedge, who

resided at the address between 1970 and December 9,

1973, also has no such knowledge. Charles Adams, as

mentioned, supra, was the co-lessee, along with defendant

Kelly of the “R & R Barber Shop,” 908 9th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

5109 Mann Street, Deanewood, Maryland is the ad-

dress of a private home owned by government witness

Napolean Hill. Mr. Hill is the estranged husband of

government witness Martha Hill who is the sister of

defendant Kelly. Mrs. Hill was arrested along with her

brother, Dorothea Ellis, her brother’s common law wife,

and defendant Ramsey on February 14, 1974 in the im-

mediate vicinity of 138 S Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

At the time of her arrest, she was seated in her automo-

bile.

Mr. Hill himself had known defendant Kelly for over

thirty-three years. In fact, during the summer of 1973,

after Kelly had left Lorton, Virginia, Mr. Hill let him

stay at his home for approximately six weeks. Both Mr.

and Mrs. Hill deny ever knowing anyone by the name

of addressee “Shirley Hill”. For Mr. Hill’s reaction and

the search of his house following the arrest of Kelly, see

this section, part E, supra.

1622 Perry Street, N.E. is a non-existent address.

However, immediate members of defendant Kelly’s family

have resided at 2216 Perry Street, N.E. for many years.

Both government witnesses Thomas Kelly (brother of de-

fendant Kelly and the resident at all times material to

the instant case) and Martha Hill confirm this fact. The

addressee on all eleven pertinent letters (see Section IV,

supra, at ) including the two seized by Mr. Kallin-

ischkies was Miss D. Kelly. Dorothy Ann Ellis has lived

at all times material to the case with defendant Kelly

at 1803 Belle Haven Drive, Apartment 302, Landover,

Maryland. The phone number 301-341-5372 was at all

times material to this case listed and billed to “D. Kelly,

1803 Belle Haven Drive, Apt. 302, Landover, Maryland

20785 (Government Exhibit + ). The relevant

lease agreement for 1803 Belle Haven Drive, Apt. 302,

itself, names “James W. and Doretha E. Kelly” as the

tenants (Government Exhibit # ). The lease wis

signed on February 2, 1973, by “James W. Kelly and

Doretha Ann Kelly” who had purportedly been married

for 18 months at the time of the execution of the lease.

Defendant Kelly’s and Miss Ellis’ signatures on the lease

have both been positively identified by handwriting ex-

tetera wo

eT en Ee ES EEE Le

ee ees

= ae

pert W.A. Schullenberger of the United States Treasury

Department. Moreover, a 1973 Georgetown University

wage and tax statement seized pursuant to a United

State’s Magistrate’s search warrant on February 14,

1974 contained the name D. Ellis and a home address of

2216 Perry Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. Charles

Adams of 311 Rock Creek Church Road, N.W., was listed

in the lease application as both the work supervisor over

and personal reference of defendant Kelly.

On February 5, 1974, Agents Landrum and Atlee

alerted the United States Postal Inspector Richard Hall

of the New York Customs seizure of the eight envelopes.

A complete description of the envelopes seized—including

those in Bangkok, Thailand—was given to Inspector Hall.

Subsequently, on February 7, 1974, Inspector Hall noti-

fied Agent Atlee of the interception and temporary de-

taining under controlled conditions at the Main United

States Post Office in Washington, D.C. of three brown

bulky envelopes addressed to “Continental Printing Com-

pany, 1125 “D” Street, N.E.” bearing Thai postage; the

label “airmail” stamped in red; and measuring six and

three quarters inches by four and one-half inches. In-

spector Hall further related that approximately thirty

envelopes met a description of the above three envelopes

had been delivered to Continental Printing Company,

1125 “D” Street, N.E., since December 1973. This in-

formation was the result of an interview with Willie

Askew, the postal carrier for the address.

On February 7, 1974, Special Agents Landrum and

Atlee obtained a United States Magistrate’s Search War-

rant for the three envelopes intercepted and retained by

United States Postal Service at Main Post Office, N.

Capitol and Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. On the same date, Special Agents Landrum and

Atlee, after serving the warrant on Postmaster Simms,

Main Post Office, Washington, D.C., searched the enve-

lopes, conducted a field test on the white powder, and

received a positive reaction on the Marquis reagent for

an opiate drug. Drug Exhibits #3, 4, and 5, addressed

to Continental Printing Company, 1125 “D” Street, N.E.,

were seized pursuant to the warrant. They were trans-

ported to the Washington District Office on the same date,

stored in a locked cabinet, and delivered to Region 4

Laboratory on February 12, 1974 by Special Agents

Landrum and Atlee. On February 13, 1974, Region 4

Laboratory advised Washington District Office that drug

Exhibits +3, 4, and 5 contained heroin hydrochloride in

the following respective amounts: 92.5%, 75.4% and

84.6%. The containers (drug Exhibits #3A, 4A and

5A, respectively) were transported to the Federal Bu-

reau of Investigation Laboratory on February 26, 1974

for fingerprint analysis.

On February 12, 1974 under controlled conditions,

Postal Inspector Hall received from the Main Washing-

ton D.C. Post Office, Union Station Section rotary lock

pouch #R88592-81. Inspector Hall opened the lock—

thereby adding one digit to the number—and retrieved

from within the pouch all eight letters intercepted in New

York on February 4, 1974.

On the same date, after having obtained a United

States Magistrate’s Search Warrant for the eight enve-

lopes, Agents Atlee and Landrum then conducted in the

view of Inspector Hall the same type of preliminary

chemical analysis of a small portion of white powder in

each of the eight envelopes as had Customs Officer Kal-

linischkies. Like the earlier one, these tests also indi-

cated the presence of heroin. Thereupon, the agents, to

safeguard the valuable narcotics evidence while unhinder-

ing the planned controlled delivery of the eight envelopes,

removed all but approximately one-half gram of the sus-

pected heroin from each of the eight envelopes. The

original powder removed from each envelope was then

placed in a corresponding evidence envelope and identi-

fied fully by address. They were at that time designated

and remain as government drug exhibits 6 through 13.

(Drug Enforcement Administration Laboratory Numbers

are #28894, 28895, 28896, 28897, 28898, 28899, 288900,

and 28901) Drug Enforcement Administration chemist

Ear! F. Parrish—a veteran expert in the field of identi-

fying the presence and percentage of heroin, who had in

this capacity testified numerous times in this Court, anal-

ysed government drug exhibits 3 through 13. While the

individual analysis of each drug exhibit is of course be-

ing submitted to the court, a summary of Mr. Parrish’s

findings on these drug exhibits is as follows:

Exhibit Lab # Cross Wgt. (gms) Net Wet. (gms) Drug Purity

(Exhibits #1 and #2 were obtained in an earlier phase of this inves-

tigation and are not applicable to this prosecution.)

3 28891 40.7 17.240 Heroin 92.5

4 28892 37.6 14.490 Heroin 75.4

5 28893 38.9 15.640 Heroin 84.6

6 28894 36.5 13.330 Heroin 74.7

7 28895 39.0 15.790 Heroin 91.0

x 28896 45.3 22.190 Heroin 77.3

9 28897 40.7 17.760 Heroin 92.3

10 28898 33.5 10.570 Heroin 83.3

11 28899 40.2 17.100 Heroin 85.5

12 28900 40.4 17.300 Heroin 87.9

13 28901 38.6 15.090 Heroin 78.5

Agents Atlee and Landrum as witnessed by Inspector

Hall then substituted lactose for the seized a portion of

heroin in each of the eight original containers which

were and still are designated as government Exhibits 6A

through 13A. The newly formed mass of each of these

eight original envelopes contained therefore a large por-

tion of lactose and a small portion of suspected heroin.

Each quantity of powder was then and continues to be

designated as Government Exhibit 6 “substitute” through

Exhibit 13 “substitute” (corresponding Drug Enforce-

ment Laboratory Numbers 28907, 28930, 28931, 28907,

28908, 28908, 28908) Drug Enforcement Administration

Chemist Parrish examined these exhibits with the follow-

ing results:

Enve-_ . Gross Net

lope Address Drug Exhibit Lab# Wet Wet Purity

6A 1125 D St., NE 6-substitute 28907 62.2 37.870 0.3

7A 1125 D St., NE 7-substitute 28907

8A 1622 Perry St., NE 8-substitute 28930 101.9 47.270 1.4

9A 1622 Perry St., NE 9-substitute 28931 71.3 29.680 1.6

10A 311 Rock Creek

Church Rd., NW = 10-substitute 28907 45.8 22.720 0.2

11A 311 Rock Creek

Church Rd., NW 11-substitute 28908 61.2 38.110 04

12A 5109 Mann St.

Deanwood, Md. 12-substitute 28908 70.2 47.140 6.1

13A 5109 Mann St.

Deanwood, Md. 13-sustitute 28908 69.7 46.640 0.2

All the above exhibits drug content was heroin.

All the above exhibits except 8A and 9A were in fact delivered under

controlled conditions on February 14, 1974.

After completing the substitution—during which he

had noticed the initials of Customs Officer George Kal-

linischkies inside each envelope—-Agent Landrum himself

initialed the interiors of all eight envelopes. Thereafter,

the agents resealed the eight envelopes and allowed them

to remain in normal postal channels in anticipation of

the controlled deliveries which were to occur two days

later on February 14, 1973. Before the ultimate con-

trolled deliveries, Inspector Hall, in the presence of Agent

Landrum, placed flourescent powder in each of the enve-

lopes.

B. The surveillance of February 12, 1974

On February 12, 1974, Special Agents of the Drug

Enforcement Administration initiated surveillances at the

following addresses:

Special Agent Addresses

1803 Belle Haven Drive, Landover, Md.

5109 Mann St., Deanewood, Md.

Michael Grimes

Larry J. Carrol and

Thomas J. Salvatore

Thomas T. Sheehan and 1125 “D” St., N.E.

Ernest L. Staples

J. James Rivera 311 Rock Creek Church Rd., N.W.

aed

At approximately 11:15 A.M., on that date, Special

Agent Grimes initiated surveillance at the above address.

At that time, Special Agent Grimes observed the fol-

lowing vehicles in the vicinity of 1803 Belle Haven Drive:

a 1972 green Mercury Cougar, Maryland Registration

# PG-2809; and a 1966 black over red Cadillac, Wash-

ington D.C. Registration # 988-189. A check with Wash-

ington, D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles revealed

that the D.C. Registration + 988-189 is listed to Clif-

ton M. Boykins at 1230 13th Street, N.W., Apt. 914,

Washington, D.C., on a 1966 black/red Cadillac. At ap-

proximately 11:30 A.M., Grimes observed a 1972 silver-

gray Lincoln, Mark IV, D.C. Registration #921-415,

park in front of 1803 Belle Haven Drive. At this time,

he saw a black male whom he later identified from po-

lice photographs as defendant James W. Kelly, exit the

passenger side of the Lincoln and carry a brown paper

bag into 1803 Belle Haven Drive. Agent Grimes took

pictures at this time with a Nikon camera mounted with

300mm lens (Government Exhibit + ), The

Lincoln then departed the area. A check with D.C.

Department of Motor Vehicles disclosed that D.C. Regis-

tration # 921-415 is listed to Thomas Henry Young,

3224 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. The above

Lincoln .is documented as a vehicle exclusively utilized

by Charles W. Ramsey, although registered to Thomas

Young. Agent Grimes was unable to fully view the driver

of the Lincoln on February 12, 1974, but could see clearly

enough into the Lincoln to determine the driver was a

heavy-set black male with short hair. At approxi-

mately 12:35 P.M., he observed Kelly and a black female,

later identified via police photographs as Doretha A.

Ellis, depart 1803 Belle Haven Drive. He observed Ellis

enter the Cougar, Maryland Registration + PG-2809

while Kelly entered the Cadillac bearing D.C. Registra-

tion #+988-189. He followed both vehicles for approxi-

mately 1% mile to the vicinity of Sheriff Road, where

both vehicles stopped on the shoulder of the road. At this

time, he saw Ellis and Kelly switch automobiles. Both

vehicles then continued on Sheriff Road for approximately

\ mile under his observation. At that time, they again

pulled off onto the shoulder of the road. He saw Ellis

and Kelly again switch vehicles so that each was in the

vehicle she/he had at the beginning of this surveillance.

Shortly thereafter, Agent Grimes lost contact with Kelly,

who was driving the red Cadillac, but maintained contact

with Ellis in the Cougar. He followed Ellis to Citizens

Bank and Trust Company, George Palmer Highway and

Sheriff Road, Maryland, where he observed Ellis make

a cash deposit. Contact with Ellis was lost shortly there-

after. At approximately 1:00 P.M. this date, Special

Agents Carroll and Salvatore observed a black male

wearing a dark shirt or pullover knit sweater and fur

cossack type hat, park a black over red two-door Cadil-

lac in front of 5109 Mann Street, Deanewood, Maryland

(an address to which two of the heroin laden envelopes

were destined). Special Agents Carroll and Salvatore

then observed the above black male exit the Cadillac walk

over the mailbox located on a fence at 5109 Mann

Street, and check the mail box by placing his hand in its

vicinity. Special Agents Carroll and Salvatore observed

the black male immediately return to the red Cadillac

and depart the area. Because of the actions of the driver

of the red Cadillac, Special Agents Carroll and Salvatore

did not maintain surveillance or get close enough to the

automobile to obtain a registration number. At approxi-

mately 1:12 P.M. this date, Special Agent Staples ob-

served a black male later identified by him via police

photographs as defendant James W. Kelly, park a two-

door black over red Cadillac, D.C. Registration + 988-

189 in the vicinity of 1125 “D” Street, N.E. (Special

Agent Staples took pictures of Kelly and the Cadillac at

this time, designated Government Exhibit # ),

Special Agent Staples observed Kelly wearing a tan coat

with a dark fur collar and fur cossack type hat, and

carrying a manila envelope, exit the red Cadillac, walk

over to the front door of 1125 “D” Street, N.E. (an

address to which heroin-laden envelopes were destined)

open the door with a key, and enter the building. Special

Agent Staples noted Kelly appeared to thoroughly view

all vehicles and persons near him as he proceeded toward

the entrance of 1125 “D” Street, N.E. At approximately

1:20 P.M., Special Agent Staples saw Kelly depart 1125

“D” Street, N.E., carrying what appeared to be the same

manila envelope noted above, enter the red Cadillac,

and proceed north on 12th Street, N.E. At approximately

1:45 P.M. that same date, Special Agent Rivera observed

a two-door black over red Cadillac park in the vicinity

of 311 Rock Creek Church Road, N.W. (another address

to which two heroin-laden envelopes were destined). Spe-

cial Agent Rivera saw a black male later identified as

defendant James W. Kelly, wearing a tan coat with fur

collar and fur cossack style hat exit the aforementioned

Cadillac, walk to the front door of 311 Rock Creek

Church Road, N.W., open the front door in which there

was a mail slot, and bend over as if to reach for some-

thing on the floor immediately in front of him. De-

fendant Kelly then shut the door, returned to the Cadil-

lac and departed the area under the observation of Agent

Rivera. At approximately 3:45 P.M., Special Agents

Carroll and Salvatore observed the two-door black over

red Cadillac, previously seen by them at approximately

1:00 P.M. that date, return to 5109 Mann Street, Deane-

wood, Maryland. They observed the Cadillac with ap-

proximately four passengers park in the driveway of

5109 Mann Street. At the time, grocery type packages

were seen taken into 5109 Mann Street by the occupants

of the red Cadillac. Special Agents Carroll and Salva-

tore observed a black male wearing a tan coat with fur

collar and fur cossack style hat among the occupants of

the red Cadillac. Special Agents Carroll and Salvatore

were joined by Special Agent Grimes at approximately

4:00 p.m. At that time, Special Agent Grimes drove past

the Cadillac and noted that the registration was D.C.

+#988-189. Special Agent Rivera joined Special Agents

Carroll, Salvatore and Grimes a short time later and

identified the red Cadillac as the same vehicle he (Rivera)

had seen earlier that date (at approximately 1:45 p.m.)

at 311 Rock Creek Church Road, N.W. An unidenti-

fied black male was observed by the above Agents to

wash the red Cadillac. Surveillance was discontinued

shortly thereafter.

C. The surveillance of February 13, 1974

On February 13, 1974, surveillance was established at

the following addresses by Sepecial Agents of the Drug

Enforcement Administration:

Special Agents Addresses

1125 “D” Street, N.E.

Carroll, Salvatore 5109 Mann Street

and Grimes Deanewood, Maryland

At approximately 12:10 p.m. that date, Special Agent

Sheehan, who was maintaining a stationary surveillance

at 1125 “D” Street, N.E., from the interior of a gov-

ernment surveillance truck, saw individuals he knew to

be defendants Ramsey and Kelly in a green 1972 Dodge

Swinger, Maryland Registration #+KS-9927 parked be-

hind his truck which was across the street from 1125

“D” Street, N.E. Kelly exited the driver’s side of the

Dodge with a small black dog and walked East on “D”

Street, while Ramsey remained seated in a slumped posi-

tion in the vehicle. Special Agent Sheehan noticed that

Kelly appeared to thoroughly view all persons and ve-

hicles in the vicinity of 1125 “D” Street, N.E., and to

pay particular attention to his surveillance vehicle.

Agent Sheehan then observed Kelly return to the Dodge

and place the dog therein. At this time, he saw Kelly

walk to the entrance of 1125 “D” Street, N.E., take a

key from his pocket, unlock the door, look around the

street briefly and enter the building. A short time later

Special Agent Sheehan observed Kelly leave 1125 “D”

Street, N.E. and rejoin Ramsey in the Dodge. Ramsey

and Kelly then pulled along side the government truck,

stopped and visually inspected the truck. They then

proceeded East on “D” Street to the intersection of 12th

Street, turned North and again stopped. At that time,

Agent Sheehan noticed that both Ramsey and Kelly stared

in the direction of the surveillance truck. Shortly there-

after, Ramsey and Kelly proceeded North on 12th Street,

out of the view of Agent Sheehan. Approximately three

minutes later, Agent Sheehan again observed Ramsey

and Kelly coming East on “D” Street, N.E. in the

Thomas Sheehan

a ee eae

te ee ee eS

Dodge Swinger. The driver, Kelly, drove slowly past the

surveillance vehicle and visually studied it closely again

while Ramsey slumped in the passenger seat obviously

trying to avoid being observed. Agent Sheehan observed

the Dodge proceed to the intersection at 12th Street,

turn South and disappear from view. At approximately

12:40 P.M. that date, Special Agents Grimes, Carroll

and Salvatore saw Ramsey and Kelly in the Dodge

Swinger, Maryland Registration + KS-9927, stop in

front of 5109 Mann Street, Deanewood, Maryland. At

that time, the above Agents saw Kelly exit the driver’s

side of the Dodge Swinger and walk over to the mailbox

located at the fence of 5109 Mann Street. He opened the

mailbox; looked in it; and then closed it.

Kelly re-entered the Dodge Swinger and proceeded to

the 1300 block of H Street, N.E., under observation of

Special Agents Grimes, Carroll, Salvatore and Mangan,

who joined the other Agents then during the moving sur-

veillance. The above Special Agents then observed Ram-

sey enter 1341 H Street while Kelly remained in the

Dodge Swinger. Approximately 10 minutes later, Ram-

sey was observed by the above Agents to exit 1341 H

Street and rejoin Kelly in the Dodge Swinger. The above

agents then followed Keily and Ramsey to the vicinity of

Florida Avenue and New York Avenue, N.E., where

contact was lost in heavy traffic. The car in which

Ramsey and Kelly were riding on this date was listed

to Kelly’s sister, Martha Hill, and is the same car used

by oat et al. on February 14, 1974 to make his mail

rounds.

D. The surveillances of February 14, 1974:

On February 14, 1974, at approximately 9:00 a.m.,

United States Postal Inspectors Richard Hall, E. D.

Strasburg, and H.L. Stuart met with Special Agents of

the Drug Enforcement Administration in order to make

final preparations for controlled deliveries of six of the

eight New York intercepted heroin letters' (Drug Ex-

' Officials did not execute delivery of the two letters sent to Miss

D. Kelly at 1622 Perry St., N.E. because there was no such address.

hibits Six Substitute, Seven Substitute, Ten Substitute,

Eleven Substitute, Twelve Substitute, and Thirteen Sub-

stitute) to three Washington area addresses: 1125 D

Street, N.E., 311 Rock Creek Church Road, N.W., and

5109 Mann Street, Deanewood, Maryland. Florescent

powder was placed in each envelope which was to be de-

livered. Postal Inspector Hall maintained custody of the

two heroin envelopes which were addressed to Contin-

ental Printing Company, 1125 D Street, N.E., Washing-

ton, D.C. (Exhibits 6A and 7A, containing Drug Ex-

hibits 6 Substitute and 7 Substitute, respectively) and

transferred custody of four other heroin envelopes as

follows: * Postal Inspector E. Strasburg—two envelopes

(Exhibits 10A and 11A, containing Drug Exhibits Ten

Substitute and Eleven Substitute, respectively) addressed

to Miss Mary Richardson, 311 Rock Creek Church Road,

N.W., Washington, D.C.; and Postal Inspector H. L.

Stuart—two envelopes (Exhibits 12A and 13A, contain-

ing Drug Exhibits Twelve Substitute and Thirteen Sub-

stitute, respectively addressed to: Miss Shirley Hill,

5109 Mann Street, Deanewood, Maryland.

Custody of the aforementioned exhibits was transferred

to U.S. mail carriers in the vicinity of the appropriate

address on February 14, 1974. At approximately 11:00

a.m., Postal Inspector Hall, as witnessed by Special

Agent Staples, transferred Exhibits 6A/Six Substitute and

7A/Seven Substitute to mail carrier Willie Askew at 10th

and D Street, N.E. Special Agents Staples and Sheehan

then observed Askew deliver the letters to 1125 D Street,

N.E., at approximately 11:07 a.m. Mr. Askew put fhe

envelopes through a door slot in the front door of the

Apparently the Kelly family home Perry St. number “2216” was

erroneously transposed by Bailey when she shifted her operation

from Aschaffenburg, Germany to Bangkok, Thailand in late Janu-

ary of 1974.

* A copy of a U.S. Post Office form entitled, “Chain of Custody for

Seizure to be used as Court Exhibit in Criminal Case,” reflects the

chain of custody on the aforementioned exhibits from their inter-

ception by U.S. Customs, New York, New York, to the postal car-

riers who completed the controlled delivery (Government Exhibit

No. ).

“ ee ee er al tat

-- Aili eRe 6 ~

address. At approximately 11:12 a.m. Postal Inspector

Strasburg, as witnessed by Special Agents Julian Lin-

denauer and Kenneth Knorr, transferred Exhibits 10A/

Ten Substitute and 11A/Eleven Substitute to mail carrier

Robert W. Lewis, Jr.,* at Illinois Avenue and Rudolph

Street, N.W.—approximately one block from 311 Rock

Creek Church Road, N.W. At approximately 11:10 a.m.,

Special Agents Gerald Masiello and F. J. Watkins saw

mail carrier Lewis deliver the two letters to 311 Rock

Creek Church Road by placing the letters through a front

door slot at that address. At approximately 11:05 a.m.,

Postal Inspector H. L. Stuart, as witnessed by Special

Agent Grimes, transferred Exhibits 12A/Twelve Sub-

stitute and 13A/Thirteen Substitute to mail carrier S.

L. Dennis‘ at 1101 Addison Road, N.E., Washington,

D.C. At approximately 11:23 a.m., Special Agents

Grimes, John King, and John Sauer saw Mr. Lewis de-

liver the two letters to 5109 Mann Street, by placing

the mail in a mail box adjacent to and inside of the front

gate to that address.

Approximately two hours later all six delivered envel-

opes and their contents were to be recovered by Drug

Enforcement Administration Agents in the immediate

vicinity of 13 S Street, N.E., from the immediate pos-

session of defendant Kelly, after defendant Ramsey had

moments before—at the outset of the arrests—sought

to relinquish his own possession of the bag of marked en-

velopes and other evidence which Kelly had delivered to

him.

* Mr. Lewis had delivered 3-4 envelopes similar to those to be

delivered on this date to 311 Rock Creek Church Rd. during the

preceding two weeks. The envelopes were more square in shape

than usual and fatter. They bore foreign postage. They were light

blue or gray.

* Mr. Dennis had at this time been delivering mail to 5109 Mann

St., N.E. for about one year. He had delivered white or light blue

square-shaped envelopes with Thai postage to the address—once in

January and once in February, 1974. “Shirley Hill” was the ad-

dressee on both envelopes. The envelopes themselves were bulky and

appeared to contain a powdery substance that was itself between

cardboard-type material. Neither prior letter to “Shirley Hill” had

been returned to him as unclaimed.

On February 14, 1974,—simultaneously with the de-

livery by the United States mail service of the above-

noted exhibits—surveillance was established by Special

Agents and U.S. Postal Inspectors at the following Wash-

ington area addresses: Special Agents Puglia, Mangan,

Garrett, Perry and Atlee—1803 Belle Haven Drive, Lan-

dover, Maryland; Special Agents Carroll, Salvatore, Sauer,

King and Grimes, along with Postal Inspector H. L.

Stuart,—5109 Mann Street, Deanewood, Maryland; Spe-

cial Agents Sherbine, O’Neil, Marshal Story, Sheehan and

Staples, Postal Inspector R. D. Hal!l—1125 D Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C.; Special Agents Masiello, Watkins,

Lindenauer, Knorr, Postal Inspector E. D. Strasburg—

311 Rock Creek Church Road.

At approximately 12:30 p.m., Agent Sheehan, who had

established a fixed observation post at 1125 D Street,

N.E., from within a Government surveillance truck, ob-

served a green Dodge Swinger parked directly behind

his position. Special Agent Sheehan then observed Kelly,

Ellis and Hill as they left the car and walked to the

front entrance of 1125 D Street, N.E. Kelly then un-

locked the door and all three persons entered. At this

time, Kelly was carrying a brown paper bag. At approxi-

mately 12:45 p.m., Special Agent Sheehan observed Kelly,

Ellis and Hill as they left 1125 D Street; re-enter the

Dodge Swinger belonging to Mrs. Hill and left the vicin-

ity by proceeding east on D Street and then north on

12th St. Agent Sheehan noted that Kelly departed 1125

D Street, carrying what appeared to be the same brown

bag that he initially took into this address. Special

Agents Staples, Grimes, Atlee and other Special Agents,

as well as U.S. Postal Inspectors, all observed the green

Dodge Swinger with the three suspects as they departed

the area of 1125 D Street, N.E. The agents followed

them to the vicinity of Second Street, N.W., approxi-

mately one-half block north of Rhode Island Avenue,

N.W. Agents Grimes and Atlee observed the green car

parked on the east side of Second Street, N.W., approxi-

mately midway between Rhode Island Avenue and T

Street, N.W. At approximately 12:55 p.m., Agent Grimes

observed Kelly exit the car and walk across Second

Street and enter a building. At approximately 1:00

p.m., Agents Grimes, Sheehan, O’Neil and Atlee saw

Kelly re-enter the Dodge Swinger and proceed north on

Second Street, N.W. Agents Grimes, Sheehan, O’Neil,

other agents as well as U.S. Postal Inspectors, followed

the car to the vicinity of 311 Rock Creek Church Road.

At approximately 1:07 p.m., Special Agents Watkins

and Masiello, who had established surveillance in the

vicinity of 311 Rock Creek Church Road, N.W., earlier

this date, observed the green Dodge Swinger as it parked

in front of Charles Adams’ house at 311 Rock Creek

Church Road, N.W. Shortly thereafter, Agents Watkins

and Masiello saw Kelly exit the car, walk to the front

door of 311 Rock Creek Church Road, and return a short

time later carrying what appeared to be envelopes. Kelly,

in fact entered the house and asked the sixteen-year old

daughter of Charles Adams—Gwynn Adams-——whether

there was any mail for him. Miss Adams thereupon gave

defendant Kelly the two “Mary Richardson” letters ad-

dressed to 311 Rock Creek Church Road, N.W. It should

be noted that defendant Kelly’s own sister corroborates

generally the material events of this date, including the

mail pickup by Kelly at 311 Rock Creek Church Road.

At approximately 1:08 p.m., Agents Watkins and Ma-

siello saw Kelly rejoin the other two suspects in the Dodge

Swinger and then proceed south on Rock Creek Church

Road. Agents Grimes, Sheehan, O’Neil, Atlee and other

Special Agents, as well as U.S. Postal Inspectors, fol-

lowed the three suspects to the unit block of S Street,

N.E., between North Capitol Street and Lincoln Road.

Kelly arrived there at approximately 1:15 p.m. At that

time, Special Agent Atlee observed Kelly park the Dodge

Swinger on the north side of S Street, N.E., slightly be-

low the intersection of Lincoln Road. The car was facing

west towards North Capitol Street. Shortly thereafter,

Agent Clinton Perry saw Kelly exit the car carrying a

brown paper bag. Kelly walked away from the car and

to 13 S Street, N.E., where he walked up a flight of

stairs. At approximately the same time, Agent Staples.

who was located in the unit block of S Street, N.W., and

who was using binoculars, saw a black male, later iden-

tified as Ramsey, in a silver gray lincoln, D.C. Regis-

tration No. 921-415, drive slowly past the Dodge

Swinger in a westward direction. Agent Staples ob-

served Ramsey as he began to circle the block slowly.

When Ramsey returned he parked in the middle of S

Street, facing west, approximately one car length in

front of the Dodge Swinger. As Ramsey was parking

on S Street, N.E., Agent Perry, who was walking north

on Lincoln Road, saw Kelly with the brown paper bag

in his left hand as he walked down the front steps of

13 S Street, N.E., and directly to the open window on

the driver’s side of Ramsey’s car. Agent Perry who was

located behind Kelly, then saw him place his right hand

and arm on top of Ramsey’s car and lean forward. Kelly

put the brown paper bag that he was carrying in his left

hand into the driver’s side of Ramsey’s car. Agent

Staples then observed Kelly as he withdrew his left hand

but not the paper bag. At this time, Agent Staples ad-

vised other agents by radio that Ramsey had now re-

ceived the brown paper bag from Kelly. In response to

Agent Staples’ observation, Special Agent Puglia advised

all the agents via radio to arrest the suspects. /mmedi-

ately, agents blocked both ends of the unit block of S

Street, N.E. Cars filled with agents pulled up to the

rear and front of Ramsey and Kelly. There occurred at

this time a great deal of tire screeching. Kelly was then

observed by Agent Perry, who was standing approxi-

mately thirty feet from him, to look rapidly east and

west on S Street, N.E. At approximately the same time,

Agents King and Sauer, who had blocked Ramsey’s de-

parture, observed a brown paper bag as it came from

within Ramsey’s automobile and into the midriff and

hands of Kelly. Agents Perry, King, and Sauer then

observed Kelly with the brown paper bag as he walked

away from Ramsey’s automobile towards his sister’s

Dodge Swinger. Agent Perry identified himself and

placed Kelly under arrest, as Kelly reached the front

fender of the car. Agent Perry ordered Kelly to place

—— —, -"

the brown paper bag on the hood of the Dodge Swinger.

Kelly did so. Thereafter, Agent Staples joined Agent

Perry and took possession of the brown paper bag (Gov-

ernment Exhibit No. ’ which contained all six de-

livered envelopes (Exhibits 6A/Six Substitute, 7A/Seven

Substitute, 10A/Ten Substitute, 11A/Eleven Substitute,

12A/Twelve Substitute, 13A/Thirteen Substitute); $1,-

100 in cash (Government Exhibit No. ) contained in

a white envelope (Government Exhibit No. ); cut-

ting material (Drug Exhibit No. , Lab No. )

contained in a white envelope (Government Exhibit No.

) bearing the inscription, “Charlie, he will have

five blocks Sunday, so he says.”” At the same time, Agents

Sauer and Mangan arrested Ramsey as he was seated in

the Lincoln. Agents Staples and Atlee arrested Ellis and

Hill, who had remained seated in the Dodge Swinger.

Agents later found large amounts of florescent powder

on both sides of Kelly’s hands and on the front part of

his sweater. Similarly, large amounts of florescent pow-

der were found on both sides of Miss Eliis’ hands. A few

specks of the florescent powder were found on Ram-

sey’s hands.

E. Seizures Incidental to February 14, 1974:

When defendant Ramsey was arrested on February

14, 1974, in front of his 13 S Street, N.E., residence,

Agent Richard Mangan seized from his person:

1. A letter addressed to Charles Ramsey at “13

S Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.” (Government Ex-

hibit No. ).

2. A registered mail receipt + 340763 for $10,-

000 from “Charles Jones” (a name often found as

the payor in cashier’s checks to Gilda Buck during

the relevant November—February period) with the

listed address 13 S Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20002 and apparently received to insure material

sent to “Mrs. Gilda Buck, 4818 Burnet Rd., Austin,

Texas.” (Government Exhibit. No. ).

3. A notepad containing the telephone number of

“Bally” (sic) in “Aschassemberg, (sic) Germany,”

06021-731-33 (the target of the German wire inter-

cept; and the unmonitored number of Bailey’s mother,

“Murril” (06021) 29156 (see Section III, supra,

page ); and also containing the inscription

“Hotel Hyatt Rama, Bangkok, Thailand.” (Govern-

ment Exhibit No. ). Charles Ramsey has been

positively identified as the writer of the written

portions cited, supra, by W. A. Schulenberger, hand-

writing expert from the United States Treasury

Department.

4. Laminated identification cards for savings ac-

counts at both the Riggs National Bank of Wash-

ington, D.C. (# 00-883-608) and the American Se-

curity and Trust Company (# 17-96438221), both

in the name of Charles W. Ramsey. (Government

Exhibit No. ).

5. A personal telephone directory. (Government

Exhibit No. ).

6. A small red personal address book with the

notation “Sister Bailey, 512-398-5495 hm, 452-1001

wk” inside of the front cover; and the inscription

“S. Bailey + 6021-73133 + 6021-29156” which ap-

pears on the inside rear cover. Defendant Ramsey

has been positively identified as the writer of both

these notations by W. A. Schulenberger.

Of course, all six delivered letters "—2 each to: Con-

tinental Printing, 1125 D Street, N.E.; Miss Mary Rich-

ardson, 311 Rock Creek Church Rd., N.W.; and Miss

Shirley Hill, 5109 Mann St., Deanewood, Maryland—

were seized from the immediate actual possession of de-

fendant Kelly by Agents Perry and Staples. Mannitol

was also found in Kelly’s brown bag (Drug Exhibit No.

19, Lab No. 28911).

Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agents

thereafter obtained U.S. Magistrate’s search warrants

for the following addresses:

*On May 7, 1974, F.B.I. Agent James Tucker in the presence of

Agent Atlee photographed these six delivered letters seized from

Kelly (as well as the three undelivered letters to Continental Print-

ing (Government Exhibits).

CS On Stl ce A + A A nt LOMA ab

1. 1125 D Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

2. 13 S Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

3. — Creek Church Rd., N.W. Washington,

4. 5109 Mann St., Deanewood, Maryland.

5. ae Belle Haven Dr., Apt. 302, Landover, Mary-

and.

The results of the 1125 D St., N.E., raid on February

14, 1974, were prodigious. Among those things seized

were: one Trimaway diet scale and orange plastic bowl

contained in the Trimaway box; one Pelouze scale

(white) Model YG-400; used Aluminum foil box (30 sq.

ft.); one “baggies” box (used 80 bag); one “baggies”

box (used 150 bag); “Handi-Wrap Ziploc” box (used) ;

measuring cup; Kitchen Craft food storage bags (used

box) ; two strainers; used Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil

box (100 Sq. ft.); forty-seven cut pieces of aluminum

foil; three plastic baggies and one hard plastic container.

(Government Exhibit No. ). Agents also discovered

458.3 grams of Mannitol—a “cutting” or diluting chemi-

cal powder (Government Drug Exhibit No. 20, Lab. No.

Extremely revealing were the seven torn pieces of

paper seized from the bottom of a trash can inside 1125

D Street, N.E., by Agent Thomas Sheehan. When fit

together, the pieces formed a note which stated:

James, as I mentioned the Equipment is in route

so I would appreciate you checking Shirley, Perry

and Charlie out this morning and every morning

hereafter. R.

(Government Exhibit No. )

Defendant Ramsey has been positively identified by

handwriting expert W. A. Schulenberger as the writer

of the note. (Shirley Hill, 5109 Mann St., Deanewood,

Md.; 2216 Perry St., N.E.; Charlie Adams, 311 Rock

Creek Church Rd., N.W.).

The February 15, 1974, execution of a U. S. Magis-

trate’s warrant for 13 S Street, N.E., resulted in the

seizure by Drug Enforcement Administration Agents of

Ramsey’s inscriptions on a cardboard sheet and his cal-

endar notepad (Government Exhibit No. ) from his

kitchen counter. On the cardboard the phone numbers

of Sylvia Bailey and her mother are again listed as is

Bailey’s address. Gilda Buck’s home and business phones

are both listed. In the calendar notebook on the dates

January 24, 25, and 26, 1974, there are three notations:

1. We are to confirm contracts and place cash deposit

for desired package.

2. We are to confirm date and place cash deposit to

assure date. Melvin Johnson to S. B.

3. End of World Serious.

W. A. Schulenberger has positively identified Charles

Ramsey as the writer of all three statements. Ramsey

is identified “in all probability” as the writer of “Silver

06021 73133” on the 1973 September calendar.

The February 14, 1974, execution of a United States

Magistrate’s search warrant for Charles Adams’ resi-

dence at 311 Rock Creek Church Road, N.W., by Drug

Enforcement Administration Agents resulted in seizure

of defendant Ramsey’s motion for a new trial. (Govern-

ment Exhibit No. ) and a copy of Kelly’s and Adams’

lease for the R & R Barber Shop at 908 9th Street, N.W.

(Government Exhibit No. ). The execution of another

United States Magistrate’s search warrant on Napoleon

Hill’s residence at 5109 Mann St., Deanewood, Maryland,

resulted in the seizure of a letter to James W. Kelly, 5109

Mann Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20027. When

Napoleon Hill, owner of the home, confronted Kelly after

the raid on his home, Kelly said, “They were looking for

me, man. That’s what they were doing. Looking for me.”

Mr. Hill asked, “Looking for what?” Kelly replied, “The

dope.” When Mrs. Martha Hill, whose car Kelly used,

confronted her brother, Kelly told her “It was just one

of those things.” She told him, “If you’d told me what

you were doing, I’d never been with you.” He said “I

had no reason to tell you.” He also told her, “You don’t

know nothing and you don’t know nothing and I’m not

telling you nothing.” Kelly apologized; said that he didn’t

want it (the arrest of his epileptic sister) to happen;

and that he never would have done it if he knew some-

thing would have happened to” her.

et ee

lS Ah A EO Oe rete i Oe

F. This subsection relates certain additional evidence

regarding the events of February 15, 1974, con-

cerning the search of 13 S Street, Northeast,

Apartment Two, Washington, D.C., relating par-

ticularly to the offenses alleged in Crimina! Case

Number 74-624.

1. On February 15, 1974, during the execution of a

United States Magistrate Search Warrant numbered 74-

252M(CR) for the premises of 13 S Street, Northeast,

Apartment Two, Washington, D.C., Special Agent Mi-

chael E. Grimes of the Drug Enforcement Administra-

tion had in his possession that Search Warrant numbered

74-252M(CR). He and other agents of the Drug En-

forcement Administration and officers of the Metropoli-

tan Police Department executed the search warrant for

Apartment Two of 13 S Street, Northeast, at about 6:40

p.m.

2. The agents knocked at the door of the apartment

and announced their purpose and authority in a loud

voice. The agents heard a voice from within the apart-

ment and after waiting two to three minutes the outer

door was forced open. The agents again announced their

purpose and authority at an inner door. This door was

opened by the defendant, Charles W. Ramsey.

3. Charles W. Ramsey was handed a copy of the

search warrant and the agents and police commenced a

search of the apartme t. Ramsey was found to be the

only person present in the premises. During the course

of the search of the kitchen area of the premises by Agent

Grimes, defendant Ramsey’s repeated request to enter

the kitchen was acquiesced in by Drug Enforcement Ad-

ministration agents. As a tactical matter, Agent Grimes

stood to the side for the purpose of observing, and did

observe Ramsey’s actions upon entering the kitchen; he

observed Ramsey looking around the kitchen area, but

particularly noted Ramsey briefly looking upwards at a

portion of the ceiling.

Other Drug Enforcement Administration agents and

Ramsey thereupon departed the kitchen area; Agent

Grimes expanded the area of his search of the kitchen im-

mediately to the previously unsearched ceiling of the

kitchen in the location towards which he had observed

Ramsey look. The ceiling was so constructed that by ex-

erting a few-pound lifting pressure merely with his

hands, Agent Grimes was able to lift free an unfastened

tile at that location and he inserted his head and shoul-

ders through the ceiling opening and from that location

in the kitchen ceiling, recovered, among other items, two

pistols. One was a Colt Trooper Model .857 Magnum,

serial number J39598 and the second a Colt Cobra .38

caliber revolver, serial number LW162599. Each gun

was transported from the S Street address to the Wash-

ington District Office of the Drug Enforcement Adminis-

tration by Special Agent John Atlee. Once at the Dis-

trict Office, Special Agent Atlee turned the two guns

over to Special Agent John Landrum. Special Agent Lan-

drum placed each weapon into a heat-sealed envelope and

placed them in a locked metal cabinet.

4. On May 17, 1974, Special Agent John Landrum

of the Drug Enforcement Administration and Special

Agent Edgar L. Seibert of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire-

arms of the United States Treasury Department trans-

ported the two pistols from the Drug Enforcement Ad-

ministration District Office to the Metropolitan Police

Department Firearms Range. At the Range, Special

Agent Seibert test-fired both pistols and found them to

be in operable condition. This was done in the presence

of Special Agent Landrum. The weapons were returned

to the Drug Enforcement Administration District Of-

fice.

5. Walter Gleason, Manager of Customer Service,

Colt Industries, Firearms Division, Hartford, Connecti-

cut, searched the records maintained by Colt Industries in

the normal course of business and those records reflect

that a Colt Trooper Mark III .857 Magnum revolver,

serial number J39598 on invoice number 094258, was

shipped from Hartfort, Connecticut, to the Philips Equip-

ment Company, 525 6th Street, Northwest, Washington,

D.C. in September of 1970.

6. Mr. Leonard T. Philips, Manager of the Philips

Police Equipment Company, 525 6th Street, Northwest,

a _ _

ee ee

Washington, D.C., received from the Colt Manufacturing

Company, Hartford, Connecticut, on September 11, 1970,

a Colt Trooper Mark III .857 Magnum revolver, serial

number J39598. On June 13, 1972, the pistol was sold

to William Leak of 1104 21st Street, Northeast, Apart-

ment Nine, Washington, D.C.

7. On June 13, 1972, William Leak of 4009 4th Street,

Southeast, Washington, D.C., purchased a .357 Colt

Trooper Mark III revolver, serial number J39598, from

Philips Police Equipment Company. The pistol was reg-

istered with the Metropolitan Police Department on

June 26, 1972. On September 10, 1973, the weapon was

reported stolen by Mr. Leak to the Metropolitan Police

Department.

8. Inez R. Arrendell of 3003 Van Ness Street, North-

west, Apartment W-605, is the sister of the defendant,

Charles W. Ramsey. Ms. Arrendell owns the apart-

ment building located at 13 S Street, Northeast, Wash-

ington, D.C., but is not at times material to these cases

a resident. She allowed her brother the defendant Ram-

sey, at times material to these cases including specific-

ally February 15, 1974, to reside at the 13 S Street,

Northeast, premise and on occasions of visiting the prem-

ises had observed her brother’s clothing in the apartment

numbered Two at 13 S Street, Northeast. Ms. Arrendell

disavows any ownership and possession of and all know-

ledge regarding the above-described pistols seized during

the execution of the February 15, 1974, United States

Magistrate Search Warrant.

The agents and officers who conducted the search of

13 S Street, Northeast, Apartment Two, on February

15, 1974, observed that the apartment was well fur-

nished and also noticed tha’ the closets only contained

expensive male clothing. There was no female clothing

stored in the apartment.

In addition to the two pisto!s described supra in para-

graph 3 of this subsection, two other hand guns, $1100

in cash and approximately 39 grams gross of marijuana

were seized from the kitchen ceiling compartment by

Agent Grimes; an additional $1855 in cash was seized

from the kitchen stove vent by Agent Grimes and (apart

from in excess of $1200 in cash seized from the person

of Ramsey and from personal papers, money and other

objects seized elsewhere in the premises) a notebook was

found by Agent Grimes in the kitchen. This notebook

has been examined by W. A. Shulenberger, a documents

analyst of over forty years experience whose expert qual-

ifications are set forth in Section VI(E) of this Record;

the expert opinion of Mr. Shulenberg is that the said

notebook is in the handwriting of the defendant Ramsey.

The pertinent contents of the notebook are set forth in

some detail elsewhere in this Record in this Section.

9. Special Agent Edgar Seibert of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms of the United States Treasury Depart-

ment checked the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia records and found the records of

this Court do reflect that Charles W. Ramsey entered

a plea of guilty before Judge George L. Hart, Jr., to

Count Two of Criminal Case Number 218-68, a felony

violation of the narcotic laws of the United States, that

is, a violation of Section 4704(a), Title 26, United

States Code.

On February 5, 1974, Agents Landrum and Atlee

alerted the United States Postal Inspector Richard Hall

of the New York Customs seizure of the eight envelopes.

A complete description of the envelopes seized—including

those in Bangkok, Thailand—was given to Inspector Hall.

Subsequently, on February 7, 1974, Inspector Hall noti-

fied Agent Atlee of the interception and temporary de-

taining under controlled conditions at the Main United

States Post Office in Washington, D.C. of three brown

bulky envelopes addressed to “Continental Printing Com-

pany, 1125 “D” Street, N.E.” bearing Thai postage; the

label “airmail” stamped in red; and measuring six and

three quarters inches by four and one-half inches. In-

spector Hall further related that approximately thirty

envelopes met a description of the above three envelopes

had been delivered to Continental Printing Company,

1125 “D” Street, N.E., since December 1973. This in-

formation was the result of an interview with Willie

Askew, the postal carrier for the address.

fa Ht al i nl Mlaetli ae

On February 7, 1974, Special Agents Landrum and

Atlee obtained a United States Magistrate’s Search War-

rant for the three envelopes intercepted and retained by

United States Postal Service at Main Post Office, N.

Capitol and Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. On the same date, Special Agents Landrum and

Atlee, after serving the warrant on Postmaster Simms,

Main Post Office, Washington, D.C., searched the enve-

lopes, conducted a field test on the white powder, and

received a positive reaction on the Marquis reagent for

an opiate drug. Drug Exhibits #3, 4, and 5, addressed

to Continental Printing Company, 1125 “D” Street,

N.E., were seized pursuant to the warrant. They were

transported to the Washington District Office on the

same date, stored in a locked cabinet, and delivered to

Region 4 Laboratory on February 12, 1974 by Special

Agents Landrum and Atlee. On February 13, 1974, Re-

gion 4 Laboratory advised Washington District Office

that drug Exhibits #3, 4, and 5 contained heroin hydro-

chloride in the following respective amounts: 92.5%,

75.4% and 84.6%. The containers (drug Exhibits #3A,

4A and 5A, respectively) were transported to the Fed-

eral Bureau of Investigation Laboratory on February

26, 1974 for fingerprint analysis.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 76-167

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER

CHARLES W. RAMSEY and JAMES W. KELLY

ORDER ALLOWING CERTIORARI

Filed October 4, 1976

The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit is granted.

Wy Uv. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFice, 1976 2235668 14

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.