United States v. Campbell

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984 · Evidence

732 F.2d 1017 (1st Cir. 1984)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceprobable causesearch warrantinformant reliabilitystalenessplain viewhandwriting exemplarsdictation

Facts

Police searched Campbell's apartment under a warrant authorizing a search for cocaine and specified firearms. The search uncovered cocaine paraphernalia and residue, along with concealed silencers and firearms. The cocaine portion of the warrant was supported by a confidential informant who said he had recently been in Campbell's apartment and had seen cocaine and related paraphernalia, while the firearms portion relied largely on older statements by Smolenski and uncorroborated hearsay from an unknown secondary informant. At trial, the government was allowed to show that Campbell refused to comply with a court order requiring him to write dictated words for handwriting exemplars, and the jury was permitted to draw an adverse inference from that refusal.

Issue

Whether the warrant was supported by probable cause as to cocaine and firearms, whether the evidence was sufficient to support the cocaine conviction, and whether the government could introduce Campbell's refusal to provide dictated handwriting exemplars and invite adverse inferences from that refusal. More specifically, the handwriting issue was whether dictation compelled testimonial content, such as the defendant's spelling choices, rather than a mere physical exemplar.

Rule

Under the totality of the circumstances, a magistrate may credit a private citizen informant without a prior track record when the circumstances provide a substantial basis for reliability, and information is not stale if it indicates an ongoing criminal business. But probable cause to search for firearms cannot rest on weak, undated, hearsay-on-hearsay assertions and criminal reputation alone. A compelled handwriting exemplar is permissible only as physical evidence; when the government requires dictation that reveals the defendant's spelling choices, it compels testimonial or communicative content protected by the Fifth Amendment, and adverse comment on refusal to comply is improper.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Providence, Rhode Island, Officer Lena Ortiz applied for a warrant to search Devin Moore's loft for heroin. Her affidavit stated that Nora Patel, a local bookstore clerk with no criminal record, voluntarily came to police, gave her full name and address, identified Moore from a photo, and said she had been inside the loft three times in the last month and personally saw packets of heroin, a scale, and Moore offering to supply customers on credit; officers had also seen Patel enter the building on two occasions.

Is the warrant for heroin most likely supported by probable cause?

Explanation. Yes. The majority held that a magistrate may credit a private citizen informant without a prior track record when the circumstances provide a substantial basis for reliability. Relevant factors include recent firsthand observation, known identity, lack of apparent motive to lie, voluntary cooperation, and some corroborating circumstances such as officers seeing the informant at the premises. A prior history as an informant is not required.