◆ SpookStack

. Placing of informants by the Government is, of course, not a consti- tutional violation. See Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 at 299 966). | | | 2 There was no reason to believe that furnishing investigatory information (including "communications" [Slip Op. 14-15]) "violated ‘the constitutional norm." The supplying of investigatory information is clearly a proper function of the FBI, and federal appellees were specifically required as a part of their normal FBI procedure, to furnish information to.local police. Not only was this standard FBI 5/ As to informant O'Neal, Judge Swygert's opinion recognizes that O'Neal was a member of the BPP (Slip Op. 11). Thus, the disruption which O'Neal’ is suggested to have caused resulted from BPP's acceptance of O'Neal and reliance on him. Any reliance on O'Neal falls within the Supreme Court statement in Hoffa v. United States, supra: - - - The petitioner, in a word, was not - _ relying on the security of the hotel room; he was relying upon his misplaced confidence that ' Partin would not reveal his wrongdoing. [Foot- . mote 6 omitted.] .. . [385 U.S. at 302.] 6/ No inference of a conspiracy-or improper purpose can be drawn ° from mere contacts or communications among the alleged co-conspirators. See Weir v. Chicago Plastering Institute, 272 F.2d 883, 888 (C.A. 7, 1959). See also Golf cAty Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., iInc., 555 F.2d 426, 435 (C.A. 1977); Scott Medical Supply Company, Inc. v. Bedsole Surgical is Inc., 488 F.2d 934, 936 (C.A. 5, 1974). Contacts with alleged co-conspirators are presumed innocent, and the presence of "an identifiable, verifiable, legitimate purpose for communicating {here the required furnishing of information] is a _ circumstance supporting the assumption of the innocence of their con- tacts . .. ." United States v. Kompinski, 373 F.2d 429, 434 (C.A. 2, 1967). See also United States v. Van de Carr, 343 F. Supp. 993 at 1001 (C.D. Cal., 1972). Nor may a conspiracy be inferred even from a showing that the alleged co-conspirators have a common objec- tive or even that each is aware of steps being taken by the other. See, for example, United States v. Ong, 541 F.2d 331, 337-338 (C.A. 2, 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1075 (1977).