38
Dog" with Toy dove-tailed immediately thereafter with Toy's knowledge of the real name of "Sea Dog" (Wong Sun) and Toy's knowledge of where the latter lived. Further, the federal narcotics agent's familiar greeting to Wong Sun's wife by first name, before arresting him (supra, p. 6), warrants the inference that Wong Sun, who had a prior conviction for a narcotics offense, was known to the officer. The likelihood of recidivism in narcotics offenses is strong Rodgers v. United States, 267 F. 2d 79, 87 (C.A. 9); Reyes v. United States, 258 F. 2d 774, 785 (C.A. 9). This element was, at the least, a further factor properly to be taken into account in the judgment of the officers that Wong Sun was probably guilty of a narcotics offense, as asserted by Yee earlier that morning.
In short, both Toy and Wong Sun were arrested upon reasonable grounds for belief by the officers that the two had committed a narcotics offense. If the arrests were lawful, the judgment of the court of appeals below can properly be sustained upon that basis, without more. However, since the court of appeals upheld the convictions on the ground that they rested, not upon evidence seized in the arrests, but upon the actual finding of the heroin in Yee's house, and the voluntary statements and confessions of petitioners and Yee, we proceed now to discuss the validity of the judgment below upon that basis.
