CRAWFORD FOUND GUILTY. HIS CONVICTION. STINSON BEACH. san francisco. los angeles

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gary CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-2658.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
July 3, 1972.
1
Anthony Michael Glassman (argued), of Miller, Glassman & Browning, Beverly Hills, Cal., Daniel H. Weinstein, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
2
D. Henry Thayer, Thomas G. Kontos, Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Attys., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
3
Before KOELSCH and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON,* District Judge.
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, District Judge:
4
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction based on the decision of the District Court, a jury having been waived, for having possession of a controlled substance (hashish) with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 841(a) (1).
5
Prior to trial the appellant moved, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to suppress, as evidence, contraband which had been seized pursuant to a search warrant and which contraband formed the basis of the indictment. At the time of the hearing on the motion, the Court, after hearing the testimony of U. S. Customs Agent, Phil Roberts, whose affidavit formed the basis for the issuance of the search warrant herein, denied appellant’s motion to suppress and ruled that the warrant and the affidavit in support thereof were valid on their face. Thereafter the appellant waived trial by jury, stipulated to the allegations contained in the indictment and incorporated by reference the Rule 41 hearing into the trial record. The court found the appellant guilty as charged.
6
The sole issue which appellant Gary Crawford raises on this appeal and with which this court is faced concerns the sufficiency of the affidavit1 which U. S. Customs Agent Phil Roberts presented to the Magistrate in the course of obtaining a search warrant.
7
The test as to whether an affidavit provides sufficient basis upon which a magistrate may issue a search warrant is governed by the test set forth in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964).
8
The affidavit of U. S. Customs Agent Phil Roberts far surpasses the affidavit of the officers in Aguilar v. Texas, supra, with respect to the specificity of the information provided the magistrate who was called upon to issue the search warrant. Appellant concedes this is so with respect to “some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were”, Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. 114, 84 S.Ct. 1514, but contests the sufficiency of the disclosure of the affidavit as to “some of the underlying circumstances” of the unidentified informant’s credibility or the reliability of his information. (Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723).
9
There is nothing in Aguilar v. Texas, supra, which gives any support to the contention that these two propositions are wholly independent of one another. We are constrained to hold they are not and that one may furnish support to the other, at least with respect to the affidavit at hand. Read as a whole, the affidavit which Agent Roberts has presented to the magistrate is as factual as that held sufficient in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), and furnished the magistrate with probable cause to issue the warrant. The rather detailed statement of the underlying facts which led Agent Roberts to conclude that the narcotics were where he stated them to be, lend themselves in support of the credibility of the information and the reliability of his information.
10
Unlike Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), the affidavit here does explain how the informant came by his information.
11
It is not simply a bare statement that the Customs Agent believed the informant. The agent’s own sworn statement of his dealings with the informant, when combined with the other details in the affidavit, were sufficient to justify the magistrate’s conclusion as to probable cause to issue the warrant.
12
Agent Roberts might well have spelled out in more detail his contacts with the informant which caused him to conclude reliability and we would recommend greater detail in the future. Nevertheless, as was stated in United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 2082, 29 L.Ed.2d 723, 733 (1971), “. . we decline to apply it [Spinelli v. United States, supra] to preclude a magistrate from relying on a law enforcement officer’s knowledge of a suspect’s reputation.”Counsel for the government has urged that we spell out clearly the extent to which, if any, the defendant may impeach the search affidavit at a hearing on a motion to suppress under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That issue is not properly before the court and, therefore, we specifically decline comment.
13
Accordingly, we conclude the decision of the District Court should be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
*
Honorable J. Blaine Anderson, United States District Judge, District of Idaho, sitting by designation
1
“I, Philip W. Roberts, being duly sworn depose and say:
That I am a United States Customs Agent;
That on May 1st, 1971, at approximately 10:45 p. m., I received information from a confidential informant, whom I have worked with on previous occasions and whose prior information has proved valid, that three persons arrived at 852 3/4 N. Sanborn Ave., Los Angeles, California, on May 1st, 1971, and were in possession of five suitcases in which were secreted approximately twenty (20) kilos of hashish;
That the three persons were identified by the confidential informant as being (1) Gary Crawford (2) a male subject known only as Thomas (3) and a female known only as Florence;
That the three persons told the confidential informant that the hashish had been acquired in Afg(h)anistan and transported from Kabul to Teheran to Istanbul to Ceylon to Tokyo to Honolulu to Los Angeles International Airport by them personally;
That the same Gary Crawford mentioned herein has on at least five prior occasions offered the confidential informant the opportunity to smuggle hashish from Afg(h)anistan or other countries into the United States;
That the confidential informant has allowed the three persons mentioned herein to lodge themselves at his female companion’s apartment (the female companion also being a confidential informant of the affiant);
That 852 3/4 N. Sanborn Ave., Los Angeles, California, is where the three persons mentioned herein are presently lodged and that they are in possession of the suitcases containing the contraband;
That 852 3/4 N. Sanborn Ave., Los Angeles, California, is the residence of one of the confidential informants;
That both confidential informants have been shown where the contraband is and have smelled it;
That both confidential informants are familiar with hashish;
That I believe that contained in the suitcases described herein are approximately twenty kilos (20 kilos) of hashish which have been imported into the United States contrary to law;
That the suitcases are described as (2) red suiters, (2) black suiters and (1) brown leather suiter.”

laura crawford and her path of destruction. stinson beach.san francisco.portbyron

laura crawford has a long history hurting people and destroying familys. lets start with gary her husband and his family. laura mistreated sebastion since he was a child she claimed he was a monster and he did unspeakable things.like a sick incodent in a taxi when seb was you now i didnt buy this cause i know laura and she is a liar. the truth is seb stood in the way of her getting all of garys money and laura wouldnt stand so she destroyed the relationship between him and his dad. laura always claimed garys brothers were bums and never held down jobs and went through the money there mother left them. she also claimed gerys niece jenny i think her name is…laura claims she is a greedy bitch and a sl.. then there is lauras poor handicapped brother whos family she also destroyed and now he is alone and very il.fact is laura is a very sick person and and every thing and every one she comes in contact with is iether hurt of destroyed

the truth about the criminal crawfords and how they made there millions trafficing narcotics.> MIRAB USA. JACK LINK. taylor mi. san francisco ca. stinson beach ca. 852 3/4 N. Sanborn Ave., Los Angeles, California

laura gregory/brooks/crawford and gary crawford of 2508 green st san fran cisco. 5 avenida farralone stinson beach. taylor mi mirab usa.portbyron il. san francisco ca. stinson beach ca gary started out a small time dope pusher on los angeles street corners. it grew into a prospering buisnes he soon was  smuggling drugs out of places like afghanistan. in 1972 gary crawford was caught with

20 kilos) of hashish and tried and convicted. when gary got out of prison he went rite back to the narcotics trade.the los angeles times descibed gary crawford as one of the largest drug trafficers in us history being responcible for bringing >TONS< of narcotics into and onto the streets of the usa. everything from marijuana and hashish to cocaine and  heroin.here is the link to his 1st cinviction….. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/462/597/280576/   gary made millions over the years in the drug trade in 1986 he got scared that maybe the feds were once again catching up with him . he went to his attorney Ron Minkin a los angeles attorney who defended the local carcotics dealers according to los angeles times.. minkin went to the feds and cut a deal all gary crawford had to do to avoid prosicution was rat out all of his drug colleagues. and that he did. here is another article on that…..     http://articles.latimes.com/1991-09-07/news/mn-1532_1_los-angeles-lawyer  not long after that gary met laura brooks/gregory. an airline stewardess who at the time lived in ft lauderdale . laura gregory  grew up in a small town of east moline il. when she was 17 she met a man norman brooks who was in his 40s at the time. she married norm and in a yr or so divorced him and took some property from him. she soon got back with norman and moved to fort lauderdale florida with him . she soon divorced him again and worked for a commodity co. and soon after that became a airline stewardess. thats  when laura met gary crawford. laura seen $$$$ dollar signs and immediately said to him. coffee tea or me?….they were married and lived in south america where laura and gary crawford started a beef jerky plant.its believed they then started in the narcotics trafficing at this time in the late 80s. they soon expanded to taylor michigan calling there company mirab usa. the crawfords claim that it was them who made jack link and his 2 sons who they are today. claiming gary crawford met jack link at a trade show and at the time jack link was in huge financial trouble and gary picked him up off the ground shook him out turned him around and helped him build his company.  laura claimed the links would behave like drunken hillbillies that when laura and gary would go up there on busnes the links would show up at there hotel room in the midle of the night drunk and ask gary to go out with them and chase bears up trees with guns. she also clammed the links offten enjoyed prostitutes and strippers and jack link and one son kicked the other son out of the company and that he now has an office across the street from them.now trust me mirab usa  beef jerky was nasty they had to be selling dope cause it was not the jerkey making them money!!!!!!the crawfords continued to move around from south america. to stinson beach ca. to michigan. and back to stinson beach ca. again. in 07 the crwfords sold mirab usa and ritired from the drug buisnes. they are now worth many millions of dollars. when i think about this….i think about all of the lives wasted from drugs at the crawfords hands. i mean they are responcible for tons of dope on streets of the usa..think about all the murders.suicides  infant fatalitys.crack addicted babys. broken familys.drug lelated crimes shootings. dead cops.the crawfords are responsible for?…it seems to me the crawfords should be spending there last days rotting away in prison.