## Facts

- Frank Hair operated a grocery store in Washington, D.C.
- Police received information from a previously reliable informant that Hair was interested in buying a stolen television and had purchased stolen merchandise from the informant multiple times, including recent transactions at Hair’s store.
- Police checked Hair’s criminal history, which included arrests for larceny and receiving stolen property.
- An officer provided the informant with a new color television lawfully purchased by police and instructed the informant to sell it to Hair while representing that it was stolen.
- The informant sold the television to Hair at the store and told Hair it was stolen; Hair purchased it believing it was stolen.
- Police then obtained a search warrant for the store based on the informant’s reliability, prior dealings, and the controlled sale, and executed the warrant.
- Hair was indicted for attempting to receive stolen property and moved to dismiss, arguing it was legally impossible to attempt to receive stolen property when the item was not actually stolen; he also moved to suppress evidence obtained under the warrant.

## Issues

1. Whether legal impossibility is a defense to a charge of attempting to receive stolen property when the property is not actually stolen but the defendant believes it is.
2. Whether the search warrant for Hair’s store was supported by probable cause based on an informant’s information and a controlled sale.

## Decision

- The court held that legal impossibility barred Hair’s prosecution for attempt to receive stolen property because the television was not stolen as a matter of law.
- The court denied the motion to suppress, holding that the affidavit established probable cause to search Hair’s store.

## Legal Principles

- Attempt liability does not attach where, even if the defendant achieves exactly what he intends, the completed act would not constitute the substantive offense because an essential legal element is absent (legal impossibility).
- For receiving stolen property, the “stolen” character of the goods is an essential element; property lawfully purchased and supplied by police is not “stolen” for purposes of the offense.
- A search warrant may be supported by probable cause where a previously reliable informant provides detailed, recent information and participates in a controlled transaction corroborating the suspected criminal activity.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the attempt theory predicated on the police-supplied television because the goods were not legally “stolen,” making the charged attempt legally impossible, while separately upholding the search warrant as supported by probable cause grounded in a reliable informant’s detailed information and corroborated controlled sale.


United States v. Hair, 356 F. Supp. 339 (D.D.C. 1973)