The appellants, Williams and Meier, were convicted of transporting a 1961 Cadillac automobile from Portland, Oregon to Laramie, Wyoming, knowing the same to have been stolen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2312. They were arrested in Laramie by state officers without a warrant, who then searched the automobile and took into their possession a quantity of personal effects belonging to the defendants. A few days later, while the defendants were still held in state custody, an agent of the F.B.I. made a more thorough search and discovered concealed in the trunk paneling of the Cadillac a number of incriminating articles. The principal assignments of error presented here relate to the admission in evidence of the results of these two searches.

Shortly after noon on May 11, 1962, Williams appeared at the office of the County Clerk of Albany County, Wyoming, presented a Georgia registration and bill of sale for a 1962 Cadillac automobile, and requested that he be issued a Wyoming title. He advised the clerk that he was Clyde W. Huntsworth, the person named in the bill of sale and the Georgia registration, and whose signature appeared thereon. Williams said he had arrived in Laramie a short time before and wanted the title because he expected to live in Wyoming. The vehicle was not available for inspection, and Williams was told that the matter must be cleared through the County Sheriff's office before a Wyoming title could be issued. When he appeared at the Sheriff's office, Williams told the Undersheriff he was traveling with a Fred W. Anderson in a blue-green 1961 Oldsmobile with a Washington license plate, which was parked in front of the Court House. When asked, he said that his identification cards and wallet were in that car. The Denver office of the National Auto Theft Bureau was then requested to obtain information as to the title of the 1962 Cadillac. Williams agreed to remain at the Sheriff's office until the report was received. During the afternoon the National Auto Theft Bureau advised that the 1962 Cadillac for which Williams attempted to obtain a Wyoming title had not been reported stolen, but was owned by a Chicago resident and was white in color. Williams claimed that he had bought the vehicle in Georgia for $6200.00, and that it was stored in New York at an address he did not know, and was black in color. At the time, Williams had in his possession an Oregon driver's license issued to Fred W. Anderson, and a Georgia driver's license issued to Fred Westley Anderson. The Undersheriff then set out to locate the Mr. Anderson with whom Williams said he was traveling, and the 1961 Oldsmobile. An automobile of this description was found near the Court House but it was in the possession of persons having no connection with Williams. A person (Meier) who had been seen walking around the Court House looking up at the jail was observed near a white 1961 Cadillac parked on the street some distance from the Court House, As he walked away from that automobile, Meier was stopped and was questioned by the Undersheriff. At that time he gave his name as George E. Richmond. He said the 1961 Cadillac, which bore a Nebraska license, belonged to 'a fellow by the name of Hamilton with whom I came to Laramie.' He produced four unmarked keys which fit the Cadillac. The Undersheriff testified that when he first spoke to him, Meier made what appeared to be a threatening gesture by putting his hand inside his coat as if to reach for a weapon. Later a pencil-type tear gas gun was found in his possession. Some time later Williams and Meier were charged in the state court.1

While Williams and Meier were held by the state officers an agent of the F.B.I. made an investigation to ascertain the ownership of the 1961 Cadillac in which they were traveling. He obtained the true identification numbers of the automobile and made a thorough search of its interior. Secreted in the paneling of the trunk he located bags containing material which might be useful in the theft of automobiles, including a large number of master keys which fit nearly all General Motor cars.2 It was learned through the investigation that the 1961 Cadillac belonged to J. S. Lunsford of Portland, Oregon. Federal charges were then filed against the two and they were taken into custody by the United States Marshal. Lunsford testified at the trial that the car had been stolen from his garage on the night of April 27, 1962. Williams and Meier had been in Portland and left the night the car disappeared.

When the case came on for trial, the defendants moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the 'stolen vehicle' alleging in writing that it was 'illegally seized without a warrant.' This motion was not presented to the court, and the defendants proceeded to trial without objection. During the trial an objection was made to the admission of the evidence found by the state officers in the automobile, upon the ground that the state arrest was without probable cause and the search and seizure by the state officers was illegal.3 The court heard evidence in the absence of the jury, and found that the original arrest was made on probable cause and overruled the objection.4

We agree with the trial court that from all the facts and circumstances, the state officers had probable cause to believe that Williams and Meier had committed a felony, and that the search made incident to that arrest was lawful. Mere suspicion, of course, does not constitute probable cause for an arrest. Wong Sun v, United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441. It is not necessary, however, that an arresting officer be possessed with evidence suffcient to establish guilt. Probable cause deals with probability, as said in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-176, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1310-1311, 93 L. Ed. 1879:

'The substance of all the definitions' of probable cause 'is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.' * * * Probable cause exists where 'the facts and circumstances within their (the officers') knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information (are) suffcient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that' an offense has been or is being committed.'5 See Ker v. California, supra; Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S. Ct. 168, 4 L. Ed. 2d 134; State v. George, 32 Wyo. 223, 231 P. 683.

At the suggestion of Williams, the Undersheriff went to check on the 1961 green Oldsmobile. He was then continuing an investigation that Williams had requested him to make relative to the 1962 Cadillac. By this time, the officer knew that this car was not owned by Williams, and was not white, or stored in New York as stated by Williams. From the information which the Undersheriff had, it was quite obvious that the Georgia papers were not genuine and that the Wyoming title which Williams attempted to obtain was not to be used legally in connection with the vehicle described in those papers. When Meier was found with keys that fit the 1961 Cadillac, he gave a name which did not correspond to that given by Williams to his traveling companion, and he in turn gave as the name of his traveling companion one which did not correspond with the name furnished by Williams. After his questioning of Meier, the officer could reasonably conclude that Williams did not want him to locate Meier or the car in which they were traveling and that the false information as to the 1961 Oldsmobile was a ruse to divert him away from Meier and the 1961 white Cadillac. We are satisfied that the Undersheriff had reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant his belief that an offense had been or was being committed. Moreover, with the possible exception of the Cheyenne newspaper on which the name 'Clyde W. Huntsworth' was written five times on the margin, there was nothing incriminating about the articles seized by the state officer and their admission in evidence was not prejudicial.

The search by the F.B.I, agent made several days after the arrest by state officers and while the defendants were confined in jail, could not be sustained as incident to the original lawful arrest, Sirimarco v. United States, 10 Cir., 315 F.2d 699, cert. denied, 374 U.S. 807, 83 S. Ct. 1696, 10 L. Ed. 2d 1032, but the defendants did not seek to suppress this evidence before the trial by motion, as contemplated by Rule 41(e), Fed.R.Crim.Proc., and did not, during the trial, object to its admission in evidence upon the ground that it was obtained through an unlawful search.6 The legality of this search was never considered by the trial court. Accordingly, the issue is not before us for review. Gendron v. United States, 8 Cir., 295 F.2d 897. Furthermore, throughout the proceedings the defendants expressly disclaimed any interest, proprietary, possessory, or otherwise, in any of the articles seized by the F.BI. agent which were incriminating.7

It is well established in this circuit, and elsewhere, that the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure is personal, and a defendant in a criminal case who claims no proprietary or possessory interest in the seized property has no standing to object to the method of seizure. Baskerville v. United States, 10 Cir., 227 F.2d 454; Wilson v. United States, 10 Cir., 218 F.2d 754, and cases therein cited. Cf. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697, 78 A.L.R. 2d 233. This rule is particularly applicable where the property seized was taken from a stolen automobile to which the defendants had no title or legal right to possession. United States v. Serrano, 2 Cir., 317 F.2d 356; Anno. 78 A.L.R. 2d 246, 8; Anno. 50 A.L.R. 2d 531, 10; Jones v. United States, supra, recognize this principle.

During the trial the F.B.I. agent and the Special Agent of the National Auto Theft Bureau were permitted to testify, over the objection that it was hearsay, as to what they had learned through their investigation relative to the ownership of the stolen 1961 Cadillac, and the ownership of the vehicles for which the license plates, registrations, bills of sale and identification plates had been found hidden in the trunk panel of the stolen Cadillac. . part of their testimony was based upon records of the National Auto Theft Bureau and reports prepared by other agents who were not present or from information which had been obtained through telephone and teletype communications with branch offices or other agents, and not upon personal knowledge of the witness. Assuming that the evidence was hearsay, its admission was not prejudicial. The stolen car was identified by the testimony of its true owner. There was no issue as to the identity of the other items, and we are convinced that their admission in evidence did not affect substantial rights of the defendants. Rule 52(a), Fed.R.Crim.Proc. There was a suggestion during the trial that this evidence was admissible under the provisions of the Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. 1732. The government did not urge that point here, but generally statements and hearsay information collected in an investigation for the purposes of the trial of a case are not business records within the meaning of the statute. Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 63 S. Ct. 477, 87 L. Ed. 645.

We have considered the other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.