Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

719 F.2d 1119

Docket No. 82-3098

United States v. Everett

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 17, 1983.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 21,1984.

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1983-11-17

<p>Non-Argument Calendar.</p>

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“While intent is an element of the crime which must be proved at trial, it is not necessary in order to establish probable cause to arrest.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including United States v. Debra Dobkowski, United States v. Boyce Eugene Abney, United States of America v. William Henry Fendell

Relies on Romano v. United States · United States v. Maryland · United States v. Savage

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1983-11-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2023

12 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

9019831990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Non-Argument Calendar.

¶2See 104 S.Ct. 1311.

¶3*1120Archibald Thomas, Federal Public Defender, .Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

¶4Ernest Mueller, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶5Before HILL, JOHNSON and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7Defendant Donald Everett appeals from judgments of conviction on four counts of conspiracy to pass counterfeit currency, passing counterfeit currency, possessing counterfeit currency, and concealing counterfeit currency. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that Everett was arrested on probable cause.

¶8The facts show that appellant and another individual, who were seated at the same table in a lounge, each passed $50.00 bills which were identified by a deputy sheriff to be counterfeit. Appellant argues that the arresting officers must have some additional evidence of intent in connection with the passing of the counterfeit money before they can make an arrest. While intent is an element of the crime which must be proved at trial, it is not necessary in order to establish probable cause to arrest. The passing of a counterfeit note coupled with an identification of the person who passed the note furnishes probable cause to arrest the individual identified as passing the note. United States v. Savage, 564 F.2d 728, 733 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Maryland, 479 F.2d 566, 569 (5th Cir.1973); accord United States v. Blum, 432 F.2d 250, 251-53 (9th Cir.1970); United States v. Ayers, 426 F.2d 524, 529-30 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 842, 91 S.Ct. 85, 27 L.Ed.2d 78 (1970); Dailey v. United States, 365 F.2d 640, 641 (10th Cir.1966); United States v. Masini, 358 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir.1966); United States v. Smith, 357 F.2d 318, 320 (6th Cir.1966).

¶9Accordingly, we

¶10AFFIRM.

/719/f2d/1119 · .json · Public domain