532 F.2d 1098 (7th Cir. 1976), 75-1642, United States v. Freeman
|Citation:||532 F.2d 1098|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orbie FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Case Date:||March 01, 1976|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Argued Jan. 7, 1976.
Irwin L. Frazin, Jody C. Weiner, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.
John R. Wilks, U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., Andrew B. Baker, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Hammond, Ind., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge, SPRECHER, Circuit Judge, and HOFFMAN, Senior District Judge. [*]
On July 22, 1974, Orbie Freeman was charged with possession of a "sawed-off" shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). The shotgun was recovered during a search of Freeman's apartment by Gary, Indiana, police officers, pursuant to a warrant issued by Gary City Court Judge Frederick Work.
Prior to trial, defendant Freeman moved to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence seized, claiming that the description of the premises and the objects of the search were inadequate, and that the warrant was issued without probable cause. The District Court denied the motion, and Freeman was subsequently convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment.
It is the order of the District Court, denying the motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence, from which the defendant appeals.
The warrant in question authorized the search of
". . . apartment 207 of a building located at 1627 W. 5th Ave. in a complex known as the Calvary Baptist Church Apartment Complex and Senior Citizens Retreat. A four story brown brick with entrance off 5th Avenue and alley 1 South and 5th Ave. at Hayes Street."
Defendant asserts that the latter phrase creates uncertainty as to the place to be searched. But when examined under Federal standards, United States v. Darensbourg, 520 F.2d 985 (5th Cir. 1975), the test is one of reasonableness and "elaborate specificity" is not required. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965). Thus where, as here, the description is sufficient to enable the officer executing the warrant to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are satisfied. Steele v. United States,267 U.S. 498, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925); United States v. Campanile,516 F.2d 288 (2d Cir. 1975).
The defendant also attacks the warrant's general description of the firearms, merchandise and narcotics that were the objects of the search....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP