Rugendorf v. United States
1964 U.S. LEXIS 2249, 376 U.S. 528, 11 L. Ed. 2d 887 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search warrant affidavit based on hearsay from confidential informants is sufficient to establish probable cause if there is a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay, and minor factual inaccuracies of peripheral relevance do not invalidate the warrant. The government's privilege to withhold an informant's identity will be upheld unless the defendant properly demonstrates that the identity is essential to their defense on the merits, not merely for challenging the warrant's probable cause.
Facts:
- On February 10, 1962, 82 mink, otter, and beaver stoles and jackets were stolen from a furrier in Mountain Brook, Alabama.
- Samuel Rugendorf and his wife were on vacation in Florida from February 17 to March 4, 1962.
- During their absence, several people had keys to their Chicago home, including Rugendorf's son, sister, a neighbor, and his brother, Leo Rugendorf.
- A confidential informant told FBI Agent Marlin Moore that during the week preceding March 16, 1962, he personally saw approximately 75 to 80 stolen mink, otter, and beaver stoles and jackets in the basement of Samuel Rugendorf's home.
- Other informants told the FBI that a man named Frank Schweihs committed the Alabama robbery and that Leo Rugendorf was a known "fence" for Schweihs and other burglars.
- Based on this information compiled in an affidavit, FBI agents conducted a search of Samuel Rugendorf's home on March 22, 1962.
- During the search, agents found 81 stolen furs in a closet in the basement; 59 were from the Mountain Brook burglary and 22 were from a separate burglary in Louisiana.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel Rugendorf was tried by a jury in the United States District Court.
- Prior to trial, Rugendorf filed a motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) to suppress the seized furs, challenging the legal sufficiency of the warrant affidavit; the trial court denied this part of the motion.
- During the trial, Rugendorf renewed the motion and also moved to compel the disclosure of the confidential informants' identities; the trial court denied these motions.
- The jury convicted Rugendorf for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2315.
- Rugendorf, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, with the United States as appellee.
- Rugendorf, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a search warrant affidavit, based primarily on hearsay from confidential informants and containing some minor factual inaccuracies, provide sufficient probable cause for a search under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes, the search warrant affidavit provides sufficient probable cause. Hearsay may serve as the basis for a warrant so long as there is a substantial basis for the magistrate to credit it. Here, the informant provided a detailed description of the furs that closely matched those stolen in the Alabama burglary, which the affiant confirmed was the only recent burglary of its kind. The additional information linking the petitioner's brother to known burglars as a fence provided further corroboration. The factual inaccuracies in the affidavit—that petitioner managed a meat market and was in business with his brother—were of only peripheral relevance, were not within the affiant's personal knowledge, and did not undermine the integrity of the affidavit. The request for the informant's identity was properly denied because the petitioner failed to demonstrate its necessity for his defense on the merits, raising it only in the context of his motion to suppress the evidence, thereby failing to meet the criteria established in Roviaro v. United States.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
No, the trial court erred in refusing to disclose the informant's identity. The petitioner's request for the informant's name was not limited to the motion to suppress but was also clearly made for his defense on the merits, citing Roviaro v. United States and arguing the informant's testimony was necessary to show he "had nothing to do with it." The petitioner's entire defense rested on the theory that someone else with a key, possibly his brother who was a known fence, placed the furs in his basement without his knowledge while he was on vacation. The informant was the only potential witness who could testify as to who let them into the basement, which goes to the very heart of the defense of knowing possession. The majority's refusal to address this issue on a procedural technicality is an overly rigid approach that risks imprisoning an innocent person.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that hearsay can form the basis of a probable cause finding for a search warrant, provided the information has sufficient indicia of reliability. It establishes that minor, peripheral errors in an affidavit, especially those not attributable to the affiant's own knowledge, will not invalidate a warrant, thereby preventing hyper-technical challenges. Critically, the case clarifies the procedural burden on defendants seeking disclosure of a confidential informant's identity under Roviaro, requiring them to make a specific showing that the informant's testimony is essential to the substantive defense of guilt or innocence, not merely to a procedural attack on probable cause.
Unlock the full brief for Rugendorf v. United States