United States v. Dudgeon, Crim. A. No. 67-278-M.

Decision Date06 December 1967
Docket NumberCrim. A. No. 67-278-M.
Citation279 F. Supp. 300
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Dale E. DUDGEON, an individual trading as Vet Pro.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Paul F. Markham, U. S. Atty., Stanislaw R. J. Suchecki, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dept. of Justice, Boston, Mass., for the Government.

John H. Green, Lynn, Mass., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

MURRAY, District Judge.

This matter came on to be heard on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by inspectors of the United States Food and Drug Administration from the defendant. The evidence includes certain statements made by defendant to an inspector in response to questions addressed to him (defendant), certain information gleaned by the inspector from examining copies of invoices exhibited to him by the defendant, three packets of a veterinary drug labeled "Golden Formula 100" and defendant's letter which is more particularly described hereafter. At the hearing on the motion, the inspector, Edward J. McDonnell, and another inspector, Doyle Smith, were the only witnesses.

The facts are not complex. McDonnell was assigned the duty of investigating the effectiveness of a recall by Rhinecliff Laboratories, a Los Angeles, California manufacturer of a veterinary drug known as "Corti-Plast," following Government's revocation of certificate issued to it as manufacturer, which authorized sale of the Corti-Plast. The defendant was a distributor of Corti-Plast under his own label, Golden Formula 100. McDonnell visited defendant at the latter's place of business and inquired whether defendant had received the recall letter and if he had complied with it. Defendant admitted receiving the letter and showed the same to McDonnell, and also admitted that he returned to the manufacturer only a part of the Corti-Plast on hand on receipt of the letter. Defendant further admitted he had continued to supply Corti-Plast to some of his customers after receipt of the letter, and exhibited to McDonnell copies of certain invoices showing these shipments. All of this conversation took place at defendant's place of business at Ipswich, and defendant responded willingly and readily to the inquiries put to him.

McDonnell reported all of the information he had received from defendant and from examination of the invoices to his supervisor. Thereafter, acting on information disclosed by the invoices, inspectors of the Food and Drug Administration seized three packets of Golden Formula 100 from customers of the defendant as follows:

1. A packet was seized in Amesbury, Massachusetts, from one Woodsom on November 21, 1966.
2. A packet was seized in New Jersey from one Stan Cross on November 28, 1966.
3. A packet was seized in upper New York State from one Robert Mace on November 29, 1966.

The United States Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to defendant January 20, 1967, giving notice of a hearing to be held January 31, 1967, in which it was stated that defendant would be afforded an opportunity to give his views of the alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act with respect to the shipments of the packets of Golden Formula 100 referred to above. Defendant did not appear at the hearing. The defendant replied to the notice by letter to the Food and Drug Officer of the Boston District, dated January 28, 1967, in which he stated that "through outright stupidity and poor procedures, some of this old GOLDEN FORMULA was sold before it was packed up for return. * * *" This is the letter defendant seeks to have suppressed.

Defendant rests his motion to suppress on the grounds that the procedures of McDonnell violated defendant's rights under the principles enunciated in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), and Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), in that defendant at time of interrogation was given no warnings of his right against self-incrimination or his right to counsel and that, as a result, his oral statements, all information gleaned by McDonnell by examination of the invoices, the seizures from defendant's customers, and his letter of January 28 are tainted by McDonnell's conduct. But when defendant was interrogated by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Gel Spice Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 28, 1985
    ...Inc., 651 F.2d 532, 543 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1016, 102 S.Ct. 1709, 72 L.Ed.2d 133 (1982); United States v. Dudgeon, 279 F.Supp. 300, 302 (D.Mass.1967). The statements were made voluntarily during lawful inspections; I therefore deny the motion to 4. Statements Made at Sect......
  • United States v. Del Campo Baking Mfg. Company, Crim. A. No. 2224.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • July 21, 1972
    ...inspectors to give them Miranda warnings. United States v. Thriftimart, supra, Footnote 6 at 1011 of 429 F.2d; United States v. Dudgeon, 279 F.Supp. 300, 302 (D.Mass., 1967). Finding no merit to any of the defendants' contentions, the Court will deny their motion to suppress the evidence se......
  • United States v. Miss Smart Frocks, Inc., 62 Cr. 349.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 9, 1968
    ... ...       Judge Cannella accepted the pleas of guilty of movant and of the corporation (Fed.R.Crim.P. 11) ...         Thereafter, on December 9, 1963, a sentence of imprisonment of a year ... ...
  • United States v. New England Grocer Supply Co., Cr. No. 76-368-C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • December 13, 1977
    ...533 (S.D. Iowa 1976); United States v. Del Campo Baking Manufacturing Co., 345 F.Supp. 1371, 1397 (D.Del.1972); United States v. Dudgeon, 279 F.Supp. 300, 302 (D.Mass. 1967). Moreover, last term the Supreme Court reemphasized that Miranda warnings are necessary only in purely custodial sett......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT