# Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — Nicholson v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_0431%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1962 - **Citation:** 371 U.S. 823 ## Text A j le IN THE ' | SUPHEME socks OF THE’ U ure STATES. A 7 ear OCTOBER TERM, 1962 e ~~ of . No 2 Pe : ; BILLY GEHLBERT NICHOLSON, | Roars ‘Petitwoner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, - S Y , Ke sponde nt BIL I. Y GHeBERE MSCHOLAON, Clannant- of $7. 198.00 in P vie j . United States Money, ; Petitioner, . P ~; TABLe oF Cases y oui sv. U nited States, 362 U Ss. ‘O57 a - 3/4, 7,10 Uuited Statgs v. Ramirez, 279 Fed.2d 712 (CA2) 0° 7 United States \ v: _tacobsen, 195 F_ Supp. 366 (B.C. wees €onm.) > Pinan ¥, 10° ‘United States v. tak 147 F. Supp. 944 (KE. D. Ky. ; ee. United States v. Lassoff, 147 FE. Supp. 944, 952, 953° oY, ( ‘nited States v. Schwartz, J51 . Supp. 399 (Ww. Dd. ss | lea v : : . « " * * MIscELLANEOUS © Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1254(1) eT ak ieee 26 Staite ate ne UU. S. Constitution, 4th Amendient . e- . _* —8980-1,.. - SUPREME. LOURF OF THE UNITED STATES cee OCTOBER TERM, 1962 es y No. . i. : ; _ BILLY GILBERT MCHOLSON, 7 ss aeenn ai rt v8, oh, ee a Wagering stay. ‘ ‘2s = ‘ ‘ Gin lggring of the petitioner's motion to suppress evi: “ denee, it was stipulated that In regard to the petitioner y having heen previotisly arrested for hook-making agivity oy Federalofticers, that theonly arrest mide Was some five (5) tears previous, in 1955, and that a jo true bill was re- 3 turned in the cause; ~ that, in regurd to any arre st of the petitioner by City of Nashville police offigers, he had: never been convicted for gambljing activities. (R. p. 5-6). ‘affidawit Yor the issuance of the searc _ Agent: Janies AS. Snuth, whose affidavit was the primary h warrant, admitted — at the hearing that he’ had. had no information, hearsay or otherwise, during the five (5) years Pegg ‘1955 ‘to thes . date of the issuance of the seurch wirrant, April 25, 1960, . that Billy Gilbert Nicholson had engaged in any book making activ ity in, the city of Nashville, Te TINessege OF hac received or takgn wagers from atiyone (Royp. 60). Said agent: further admitted that a surveillance made of the premises, ° hefore the obtaining of the search warrant, . * * - © . ‘ - 6 ° 6 “ Shoaved nothing unusual or suspicious about thi. premises: re ‘be svarched’ (Ri p. om). te Both the, Dist riet Court and tlie United States Court . of Appeals for the Sixth € ireuit. hefd that the volume of fong distance telephone ‘alls, nd the inferences, to: be de- rived from the character of the arties. subser ibing to mi ny : of the phones called, were siffficient® to justify a reasan- . Mbly cautious man in believing that a violation of the oecu-s! pational wagering tax stamp statutes ‘had. ‘oceurred. —T he "property seized by virtue of ’sard search provided the: cir-. cs cumstantial evidence upon which petitioner was convicted. ., The Question Is Substantial’ _Tt is submitted that the procedures utilized to obtain the Issuance.of the search warrant in the instant cause, are of such uestionable validity and. the. issues involved are of , -such ‘w idespread: importance as to justify “tlie yissitanice of. the petitions. | aor ey - Petitioner ssaiintta that prgkable ease does’ not exist for the issuance of a Search-wayprant or SUS}eC ted violations of said:statutes, without seme further factual infermation > independently corroborative. of the inferences to be derived. - r from the tong distance telephone call charting-method. “The — Attorney General of the U nited States and the local United | States District Attorneys arte vigorously pressing for in- dictments of individuals accused of viol: iting -the oceupa- . “tional gambling’ tax statutes, and. although the volume ef + litigation is large today, it will undoubtedly. increase due” to the avowed public position of the Attortiey General. It is belitved: that this ¢a use* presents squarely the issue of whethei the naked use of -the long: distance telephone* chart- ing system alone may support the issuance of. a search warrant. . If the opinion’ of the United States Court’ of Appeals for thie Sixth Circuit: is not reviewed, it will become ~ a > 7 ‘a leading precedent for the wiglespread, intreased use of %” such inethod. 2°. 4 The Question. Presented ae te. Jone sv, v nited States, 362: US., established that’ ‘an affli- : , -davit cons isting primarily of he ‘arsay information obtained » « from-a reliable informant may be sufficient ‘to. suppert. the issuance of a search warrant. A qualifteation on Jones has been stated by its gba Ctreuit in United States v. Rami- rez, 279 Fed. of 713 (CCA 2), Wate rian, J. * ; ee eee (5): Jones VU nited States, 362°U.S. 257, 267-272, 80 gis: "S.C. 725, 734-756,.4 L.Ed.2d 697° (March 28, 1060) has | oe now established that an affidavit cousisting primarily of hearsay information may he suffic dent to support . the issuance of-a search warrant... However, the re- © quireaent, that the affiant. shall-have personak know!- A edge still extsts, for, under Jones, the, diffiant, must not only believe the. hearsay report, but, inéall likelihood, the afliant gust further demonstrate that his informant has established a reputation for -relidbility: 80 as to be worthy af belief. In addition Jones may require that the affidavit include some fact wale information inde pen- ‘dently corroboratir eof the.hearsay report... (Enm-. r a , | phasis supplied) ee _ United States: v. ‘Ramirez, 279 F.2d Te at p. 7105. In the case at bar. there, was ne inforination from a re-* \ liable informant; there was only a he garsay report made up per escae _ by the agents, Which. was not corroborated in any respect, There were less than three (3) long distance telephone \' alls per, day made to or,from-the telephones at the resi-. dence to be s@arched: Such volume 6f activity was not un. _- usual in the year 1960. “Maiy residences threaghout | the .° - country have two (2) telephones and-a large number of aoe ee ‘long distance te lephone calls are mare dai aily on, suc Ah tele : phones. Further, petitioner may well have beet e ngag ced in san bling” on his own behalf as contended at trial It was aun. disputed that the telephone calls were made to parties who were registered for the eceupational Wagering tax Stamp, ‘and as such, were: nah violating the statutes of the United States in accepting Wagers. To allow a seareh of a resi. derice under the facts presented in this eiuse would justify the issuarice of search warrants for the search of the re si. denee of a person never previously convicted of a erime simply on the basis of the amount of long dixtance tele phone activity, if a portion of these calls Were made to par: - ties who’ were known to be gamblers. Such a rule cannot be justified under. our traditional concepts of the consti. tutional prohibition’ against ss acca searches of ae man’s residence. ve Pig sess . Of course, there has been some latitude granted. regardjng the searehes of moving automobiles and the like, becanse of the transitory nature-of the crime suspected, Be ‘fore a search of a person *’s residence should. he authorized, (ov ernment agents should have possession of such other apd 5 further knowledge that would corroborate or estrengthen the inferences and suspicions ‘that may be Uirived trom long distance telephone. eall activity. - “Onie District Court has sustained the’ -alidity of. eens: sition asserted by th¢ petitioner. In nited State sv. Las- _soff, 147 F. Supp. 944. (KB. D. Ky.” Swinford, Judee), the Court first found thé search warrant to he defective hee tse. only conclusions were set oft in the affidavit:, However, — the United States then took the position (See 147 F. Supp. 949) that if the search warrant was invalid, the motion to° . suppress should haye been overruled beeause there was sufficient evidence known to’ the agents which formed valid grounds for a lawful arrest Without a search warrant. - “suppress and stated the following: é. -s pia ash . 9 Se eS “The ¢rounds telied on by the Government: were . very similar wo those set forth in the affid: ivits in the searcli war-* rant in’ the instant cause. eee Judge Swintord, in his degis sion, sustained. the motion fo ‘ Ms, . The facts ip the knowledge ef the agents at the _g time they broke the outer deor of the building ascended the steps te the sefond floor. and broke down the doors ‘into the sécond floor rooms were merely the result of nothing more than hearsay acquire ‘dat the conference in Pittsbureh.- There was: certainly notiaasie itt their aa observation of the builditig: while they ‘held: it undet " eurveiliance that would justify their a that a fe ‘lony ‘Was being committed on the’ second floor-of the Ry building. ‘I ven the records of the te lephone agencies . = 33. in’ the local area, Which may be cons sidered ws valid first. hand information about which the agents could testifysbefore a jury, indicated no law violation unless coupled tothe information acquired at the Pittsburglr. - conference, - If is true the y had knowle qe of HMINCTOUS long distance telephone calls fron’ the WA5 Monmouth Street address but that alone is not sufflcrent. nor does it appear to ‘be ‘so unreasonable as to indie ate that the 7 ocenoants of the building were rngage din operating a handbook. for wagers on aporting events...’ "> (Em- phasis suppli®d) “ United States Vv. Lassof, 147 F. ‘Supp. 944, 992, 953. The U nited Stites Court of eeu in the case at bar relied primarily on the rule of law that probable cause re- quires an act of judgment formed in Hight of the particular . situation, and that because ‘many ‘situations are more or less ambiguous, a ie ‘termination that probable cause exists and should be accepted unless,it is shown that the U.S, -/ ‘ re ° P . 10 Commissioner’s judgment was arbitrarily exercised. AL though this is the law, the Courts should always eXamine. the particular situation: to determine whether, probal de Cause exist’ : : ( ‘ontrasted to the instant case is 0 nited States v. Jacoh- sen; 198 F; Supp. 386, (D.C, Conn.) where’ the agents utile ized the charting system together with information receives from two (2) reliable informers who had furnished reliable ‘infogmation in the past to search+premises occupied by a certain known ‘book-maker, who was vengaging «in hook- making activities. Petitioner has no quarrel that the Ja-- ‘cobsen case, as it ‘illustrates the. problem im, the instant cause,, In Jaé@obsen, there was corroboration acgeptable under-the doctring of Jones vi United States, Sepra, as the ‘inferences derived’ from the long distance sia Meon chart- ing method were ‘verified by information from reliable informers. . , a ‘ It is not difficult fot Government’ agents to obtald / i he testified that in 1955, when the Nicholson place was. : craided, actual betting tle kets. Were seized with “*Ted L. thereon, and that be also ‘found -some mailing: éddresnes on the premises having the name of Leo Leyison. Agent Smith then testified that ‘twe contacfed Mr. Levison. and : he gave us an_affidavit that that was his bets identified P as Leo L:’’ Objection was niade ‘to *the testimony of Sig Avent, Smith identifying the name appearing on the slips re -| of paper. The Conrt sustained: the objection with respect - | to that portion of the testimony in which Smith ‘stated * that ari affidavgt) had been’ obtained from Mr. /Levison identifying the name of Leo L. on the ‘slips of: paper as lis owat, Loweve=2 thie Court overruled the objection as- to the remainder of the testimony. The defendant in his motion for a new trial assigns’ this, ruling of the Court | as error, JHowever, the Court is of the opinion that with | the testimony as to the affidavit stricken, the remainder’ - of the evidence was not based upon hearsay. Smith testi- fied | (aside from. the ‘affidavit) that. his identification of “Leo. L.”? as Leo Levison was also made by comparing the Sit paper with the mailing addresses, all of which — were found on a. previous occasion in a raid. This was * direct testimony based“ upon Smith*’s own observations and was competent to go, to the jury to determine whether Leo L. and Leo Levison were one and the same person.. 3 he defendant further objects that the’ Court. was - in * error in allowing Smith to. testify that J. Robeno, whose name was also ‘ound on the slips ef paper, was a well ee. known. &ambler-im Birmingham. It appears: that Snuth ~ bareencs testified categorically to this effeet and in the absence of cross-examination by defendant's counsel; it conld not be known just what the witnesses’ source of information was. If such information Was actually based upon hearsay, it was incumbent upon defendant's ¢ounsel to explore the —, . * s. matter and by) cross-examination- disclaye to the Court facts which would render the testimony incompetent. If it then deve ‘loped that the testimony wad based upon hear- say, gieappropriate objegtion could have-been maide, Since this course Was not followed, the Court can see Ba reason why the ev idence is not competent, The third objection is*that some ef AXgent Smith’ s testi mony represented his opinions and conclusions and dhere fore was improperly admitted. This. objection has no me rit for the Court corréetly allowed Smith to testify as , fa expert after the governme nt had Hadid a proper fouiiea. ‘tion. The use of such “expert testimony’ is proper when the subject matter of an inqniry is so far, removed’ from thesrealm of commoir experience that the ordinary. jury. camiot fairly = expected to draw a correct inference from. - the facts. J.S. 217. A test of admissibility of” expert . jeatimndny: is i wastes the jury would be aided’ by receiving the ev idence. These tests readily attach to the, factual situation. in the instant ¢ase.- The jurors can reasonably be said to -be unacquainted with the operation of a® book- making. establishment and the testiinony of a properly qualified expert as to the general hucalonen prac. tices, and procedares of, such an operation wonld be. of material assistance to the jury. There was no error in the admission of Agent Smith's testimony in this-respeet.. ¢ The motion for a new trial is without merit and must be overruled.” — cad es s Wa M. _E , , Muse, ——— ° United States ‘District Judge. nr ne ’ APPENDIX c- i : * “See, A. Imposition of tax” “There shall. be infiposed sapee ial tax of $50 per year to be paid by each person who is liable for tax under section . 4401 or who i is engaved in receiving wagers forsoron behalf of any person so at Aug. 16, 1954, 9:45: ain, J ». a c, 736, OBA, Stat. a27."" o Sec. 4412. Registration ; (a) ‘CRequireme nt. Fach persom required to pay a-specia! tax under this: subchapter shall register with the official in charge of the inte rnal revenue dist riet— (1) his hame and place of -rpsidence; (2) if he is liable for tax under subchapter. A, each place ot business where the activity which makes. hinr so ‘liable is carried on, and the name and plae e of residence of éach -. person Who is engaged in receiving wagevs for him or on, his behalf ; sand. res oO ge (3) if he is engaged in receiving wagers for or on behalf of any person liable for, tax under subehapfer A, the name - and place of residenc® of each suc ‘+h person. (b) Firm or "eompany aW here pubicetion (a) requires the name and place of ‘residence of a firm or’@ompany to he registered, the names and places of residence of the several » persons constituting the firm or company shall be-registered. Miiromer (c) ‘Suppleme ntal information.—-In accordance with regula- tions prescribed by the Secretary, he or his delegate may require from time. to: tinie such supplemental information from any person required to register under this section as may be needful to the enforcement of this chapter. | Ang. 16, 1954, 9:45 a.m., CB, D.T., ¢. 736, GSA Stat. 527." See. 72003, Willful failure to, file return, . supply information, ‘or pay tax . ‘Any person: require al under this tithe to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by thistitle er by revulations made = 7 _ under authority thereof to make a -return (other than a return required under authority of section GUS ‘or section 6016), keep any reeords, or supply. any information, whe willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, ‘keep such records, or supply such inform: iv the time or times required by law or eutedione shall, ms: additiow to other penalties previded by law, be enilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or iniprisoned not mere than 1 year, -or both, together with ~ costs oF prosecution. Aue. 16, 1954, 9: fo aan., E.D.T., ¢. 736, GSA Stat. SoTL" . Sec. 7262. V iolation: of occupational tax laws. relating to oupsing. Failure to pay special tux **Any person-who does any act whie homakes him liable for special tax under subchayiter B oof chapter. 35 without-hay- - ing paid such tax, shall, besides being liahle to theepayment © ‘of the tax, -be fined not less than $1000 and not-more than $5,000.. Aug: 16, 1994, 9:45 ain. ELD... ¢: 736, OSA Stat. 862." : U.S. CoystircTios—AMESpaes'’ (IV ve “The right .of the people.to be secure in their’ persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and: seizures, shall not be Violated? sind: no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by. Oath or affir- mation, and particularly describing the’ place to be searched, and the persons or things to’ he seized," > e eo, 26. - . e o- 2 , ; o> ° ‘ ° APPENDIX D- / eae MS oc (Filed Jun 29, 15160. } ; U sirEy Sta’ TES Distucr. Counr por-rrE-M I aaa aD Ce __ ae aa: pte See Distuict oF TENNESSEE . be - "© omlnissioner *’s Docket Xo. "49 Case No. 53k i Affidavit for Search Warrant. ee Uwsirep Sratres or America, " PC. , Puesse Kxrown As 2806 Wesrwoop AVENUE. NASTIVILLE. = ~ TENNESSEE. . - Arripavir ror Searcau Warkanr. ' ra . . “ ; : Fd a Ny * (Filed Jun. 29, 1960) . ‘ - Before J. Wasuixctoxn Moore, Nashville, Tennessee: - eS Name of Commissioner Address of Commissioner The undersigned being ‘duly sworn deposes and says: ~ | ‘That he has reason n to believe.t jeve,that tn the-premises a as 2806. W estwood Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee, further _ deseribed as’ being the fourth house on the north sic Westwood Avenue and being west fr om the. intersection Westwood Avenue and Natchez Trace as sliown in attached ~ sketch in the Middle Judicial District. of Tennessee, there * is now being coneealed certain property, namely bookmak- | ing recor, wagering paraphernalia consisting of bet t slips, A ie eee . here deseribe property . pong ran sheets, account sheets, recap sheets, and money. ‘used in or derived from a booking operation’ which are, - being used in violation of Section 4411, 4412 and 7203 of the‘ . - here give alleged grounds for Search and seizure : Internal: Revenue Code of 19: os. . e- . e ¥ ; if . . fr ; : es And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing > «grounds for isstianee of a Seatch Warrant are as. follows: ©. Lama Spectal New at tog the Intelligence Division, Tniternal, RevenaesService, US. Treasury Departinent, assigned. to tho Nsliville LHe ssee Distries office of the Atlanta, Geor. - gia, Region. Jn connection WITT hepato nice of miv cute: dnkied and upen exariin bLion of the: efficil records of the Intelligence Division, [found that a known boolksnekine operator in New Orleans, Louisiana, has ifiade ntimerous lane distanee tele phone’ vals to tele phone mantirder ¢ Y press! 7-09054, Nashville, Tenne Sse, Upon examination: wf the neeords Of the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegs ‘aph Company, Nashville, Tertiossee, I found that’ phone number CY press 7 904 aud CV press 75925 are sufseribed te by Robert Walker and are, lotatted ‘in the premises of 2808 Westwood Aventio, Nastiville, Ten hessee, | further found that a person bw the name of ML: alle Hutcheson is the. subseriber to phone Hoenn er - Ypress 7-1460 also Weated in. the ise of 2806 - Westwood Avenue: ° . tae ae saves Ko Sworn, eons , op @sSignature of Affiant, Special Agent Jars Ke Swern, “Offic wal Title, If Any. Sworn to before mie, and onbee rilvedd in my pre Sener Ayn i 2. 1960. ; : ; ‘ ye ae wr FP Wissesavas Moorr, Vnited States Conniiesione “ae ’ . . «2 The official records of the Intelligence Divisidn further reveal that the name Robert Walker is an alias Sometifnes - used hy B: liv Gilbert’ Nicholsom that, Billy Nie ‘holsom muar- ried a daughter of Mable Hutcheson ih December, 19 2 and that both hate resided swith Mrs. Tinteheson at 2806 AVestwood from time to time. Current observations re eal that Billy Nie hélson 4 is presently residing at 2806 Westwood “Avenue. . ‘ Billy Nicholson is a known gambler and bookmaker “in the. Nashville ¢ area and has been arrested by city and fed: - . te os - oral law enforcement’ offieers in connection with gambling and bookmaking activities, When arrested by the Federal officers, Nicholson was found to be conducting a bookmaking operation. ftom, the address of 2806, Westwood Avenue, Nashville, ‘Tennessee. 1 persenally participated in this arrest and observed the bookmaking operation at thi ze District of Tennessee, Ks 5 ‘Before Pi W pasts .GTON Moonk, U aited ‘States Commis- . sioner, for-the “Middle Judic ‘ial District of Pe THeSSeE, | The undersigned. being. duly” sworn deposed sind SUVS , that he has. personal. knowledge that telephone Aummbers ‘TRemont 9- 0401, _TRemeont 940402, aiid TRe mont. O43 in Jefferson - County, Alahama, are listed’ vin’ the name of Superior Sports Servite, Incorporated, M. DD. Dodson,’ President, Route No. 13,. Box No. 778. Birmingham, Ala. - bama: that M. D. Dodson does reside at the address known’ as Route No, 13, Box No.,778, Birmingham, Alabatua, this. icing the. third house west of the (sahil viver on the north side of Old Looney Mill road. ' The undersig med further ‘states “that he hies persconah knowledge that Ml DD. Dodson is a known gambler and’ bookmaker and that’ he has heen arrested by hoth- local and federal atithorities for his bookinakiare ativities. t A Franens C. ¢ page o. 7 Spec ial Agent, I 1h pee CORE: lutelliqence Divi ixion, 2h ; internal Rercwne Services Ly eS a Subscribed me sword to- atete: me ‘this 22nd. day of April, 1960, at Ni ashviltie, Tennéssee, , J. Wasnixdrox Moone, te i United States Commissioner. ae ‘ ad . F - ; Unirep States Distuict Cover ror THE “Mivorie Suites * Disraict oF TENNESSEE * Commissioner’s Docket No. 40 PCase No. 5301 0-2 © tee, Segreh Warrant — ee... Usirep States or, Amegicay oe ; . ; 9 _* ‘ 4 Premises Kyown as 2806 Westwoop Ave., NASHVILLE, Le ae TEN SEsste 4 Caer ‘ + ° . , . /j ; Sranci- Ww AKKAST ea Y / 9 (Fite Jun. 29, 1960)” To Jy ngs K, Smith of any. shor spevial agent: of: the ln- telligence Division, Interna! Revenue. Service, Affidavit having been- made ‘before me by James K.- Smith and Francis ‘C.. Smith, Special Agents of the Intelli- gence. Divisign, Internal Revenue Service that they have reason; to believe’ that onthe premises known as 2806 Westwood Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee, further described as being the fourth hpus? on the north side’ of Westwood Avenue and being west from the intersection of W ext wood * Avenue and Natchez Trage as’ shown in attached sketch in the Middle Judicial District wf Tennessee there is now. being concealed certain property, naufely bookmaking ree- ords, wagering paraphernalia consisting of bet slips, run- down shéets, account sheets, recap sheets “and money used in-or derived rom .a’ bodkmaking operation which are. being used in violating of Section 4411, 4412 and 7203 of ‘ J here give ailegyd grounds for séarch and seizure es - the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and as I am sayin ~ that there ts probable cause fo believe, that the property sO described is being concealed on the premises above described and. that the foregoing grounds for application "for issuance of the search warrant exist. — « You are hereby commanded to*search forthwith the or place naiped for the property specified, serving this war. ‘Fant and’ making the starch in’the daytime and if the property be found there to seize it, leaving ‘y ‘copy of this warrant and a receipt for the property taken, aml prepare’ ‘a written inventory of the property seized and return this ‘ warrant and bring the property: before me within ‘tes n davs ‘of this date, as réquired by law. Dated this 25th day of April, 1960, “J. Wastixetos Moone. a Late 8. C OMMISSIONET, ont” ep Return, I received thie attached search warrant April 27, 1M), and have exéeuted it as follows: + , On April 27, 1960, at 1:00 o'clock P. M., 1 searchfed the _ premises deseribed in the warrant ‘aml J left a copy of the warrant with Billy*Nicholson togethpr with a receipt for name of person searched or owner or “at the piluee of search” tne items seized. ‘. 4 Se ~ The foilowing is an inventory of property taken pursuant to the warrant Nashville area (read- ing). ‘and has been arrested . hy city and federal, law en forcement officers in connection with gambling aiid hook. making activities, When arrested hy the Federal officers, Nicliolson was found to. be conducting a bookmaking oper, ation from the address: of 28006" W ‘estavood Avenue, ia is : ville, Fer Inessee, ow . : Our stipulation as [| understand it (Mr. Cole can correst me on thts if T ant in error) is that this raid mentioned in the affid: ayit was made in 1950, and there was-a no trite bill. Jae regard to the Allegation that he had been arrested hy” ‘city and ea ve enforcement officers, he had been ar- resttd im 1051, ' prior thereto by the C ity of Nashville but ng sonciction and, according te the. records, there had oe Cus ‘a bookmaker at the fime that this r aid’ was made j The Court: There had been sio convictions? . ; a ae ‘ 4 e als ff © alia Mr Gilbert: No convictions; no, sir. IsAhat correct? j Ae orate we Mru-€ le. That's orreet.” "Tat ‘ 7 Ay. yi 4 , Tr. pp. 5-6, QQ. Weall know, Mr. Smith, that you have been here with the Preasury Depantiient fo ‘sometime and that you” have made nimerous surveilkaie@estand raids and so fort ‘hert Nicholson has within the period of ‘the last five years 4 : home? | Now, what surve ‘ilance did vou make of Billy Nicholson’ s A: The only sutucillanee - we made of his heme’ was to defermine whether or not Billy Nicholson was still residing there, and. we did s SEC ini Sitting out on the sun porch on a. few oasions. ~- F Lag “Pre p. &. “Well, ee on you: answers, T will just flat out ask \ you if you have any information, either by word of mouth from somebody else Or any written record: that Billy Gil. accepted a wage r? A. All the-- Any records that he might have were destr8v “od » by-him out there i in that fire, se as to that, [don’t ha® e any we did not oot any out.there, No, sir”? Crane fe eS . . . PO ee ape MRA gt Td see eae voing in! Land out and. eae sacks and so forth, charae teristic of a numbers oper- . ation or ax Gookmaking operation, and‘ that’ these events would happen at a certain ord particular era spveial time, --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_0431%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.