UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DONALD EVERETT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 1983-11-17
No. 82-3098
Before HILL, JOHNSON and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
719 F.2d 1119 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Defendant 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.

The 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).

Accordingly, we

AFFIRM.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Dahl v. Holley, 312 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002)
    …na, 87 F. 3d 1235, 1241 (11th Cir.1996) (“There is a substantial difference between the quantum of proof necessary to constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction and that necessary to establish probable cause.”); United States v. Everett, 719 F. 2d 1119, 1120 (11th Cir.1983) (affirming finding of probable cause despite lack of evidence of criminal intent). Similarly, the exculpatory statements referenced by Dahl — her statements that McCardle should tell the truth and not lie to the mayor — did n…
  • Davis v. City of Apopka, 78 F.4th 1326 (11th Cir. 2023)
    …pects' “subjective intent” when their conduct “otherwise gives rise to probable cause to arrest.” Gates, 884 F.3d at 1300; Jordan, 487 F.3d at 1355 (“[N]o police officer can truly know another person's subjective intent."); United States v. Everett, 719 F.2d 1119, 1120 (11th Cir. 1983) (hold- ing that evidence of intent was not required for probable cause to arrest for passing or possessing counterfeit money). We have pointed out that arrests are different from criminal prosecutions, and "[p]olice officers a…
  • Isaiah Jordan v. Mosley, 487 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2007)
    …own Circuit has concluded that, even for a criminal statute that requires proof of an intent to defraud for a conviction, an arresting officer does not need evidence of the intent for probable cause to arrest to exist. See United States v. Everett, 719 F. 2d 1119, 1120 (11th Cir.1983) (passing or possessing counterfeit money). Thus, when a police officer arrests a suspect for committing a general intent crime such as the one defined in O.C.G.A. § 16-7-23(a)(l), the officer needs no specific evidence of the…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw