In re Tri-State Coal & Coke Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1918
• Docket Number: 35.
• Citation: 253 F. 605
• Parties: In re TRI-STATE COAL & COKE CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

253 F. 605

In re TRI-STATE COAL & COKE CO. et al.

No. 35.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

March Term, 1918

E Lowry Humes, U.S. Atty., of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the United States.

Nash Rockwood, of New York City, and Diamond & Zacharias, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

THOMSON District Judge.

Three several petitions are presented to the court, one by the Tri-State Coal & Coke Company, one by the Pennsylvania Central Coal Company, and one by T. F. Barrett, praying for an order directing that all books, papers, writings, and other property of the several petitioners, alleged to have been illegally seized and taken by the United States marshal be returned.

The property was seized on search warrants dated February 21 1918, issued by the United States commissioner for this district, supported by affidavits of Edgar B. Spear, special agent of the Department of Justice. The deputy marshal serving the warrants made return in each case on February 23 1918, setting forth in connection therewith a general schedule of the property seized on each writ.

A little later petitions were presented to Roger Knox, United States commissioner, who had issued the warrants alleging the illegality of the search warrants, and that the property was unlawfully seized, and praying that the property and papers be returned to the petitioners. A hearing was had before the commissioner, in which testimony on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of the government was taken. Certain of the papers seized were returned and others were retained, and on hearing the commissioner refused the prayer of the petition.

The search warrants authorized the entry upon the premises in question 'to search for, seize, and take away certain property, to wit, contracts, books of account, minute books, ledgers, journals, cash books, day books, memoranda, and order books, check books, receipt books, and other documents, which other documents were more particularly enumerated, described, and indexed by words, letters, and figures, as follows, to wit. ' But following this there is no description or designation whatever.

The protection of the people of the United States against unreasonable searches and seizures has been guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in these words:

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized.'

The protecting scope of this constitutional provision, as well as its limitations, have been considered and enunciated in various decisions of the Supreme Court, among which may be cited Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 Sup.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746, Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 24 L.Ed. 877, Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 Sup.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568, Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 26 Sup.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652, Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 Sup.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, L.R.A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177, and many others.

These cases all recognize, not only the binding force of this constitutional provision, but its high necessity to protect the sanctity of the home and the privacies of life; that this protection is so broad and ample that it embraces all persons, even those accused of crime; and that the duty of giving it full effect rests upon all intrusted under our federal system with the enforcement of the laws.

In Weeks v. United States, the following limitations are distinctly recognized: The right to search the person of the accused when legally arrested, to discover and seize the proofs of his crime; the right to seize the tools of the burglar, or other proofs of guilt found upon his arrest within the control of the accused; the right to offer during the course of a trial papers, though unlawfully seized, unless reasonable application for their return has been made to the court.

The act of Congress of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 217, c. 30), under which the search warrants in this case were issued, very carefully guarded against any invasion of the constitutional provision. It clearly sets forth the three grounds upon which alone a search warrant may issue:

(1) When the property was stolen or embezzled, in violation of a law of the United States.

(2) When the property was used as a means of committing a felony.

(3) When the property, or any paper, is possessed, controlled, or used in violation of section 22 of this act.

By section 3, title 11, a search warrant cannot be...