Pannulla v. Rosenberg

• Decision Date: 17 July 1952
• Citation: 171 Pa.Super. 233,90 A.2d 267
• Parties: PANNULLA v. ROSENBERG et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

90 A.2d 267

171 Pa.Super. 233

PANNULLA v. ROSENBERG et al.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 17, 1952

Argued March 20, 1952.

Appeal, No. 33, Oct. T., 1952, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, Misc. Docket, Page 305, Oct 5, 1951, No. 14, in case of Carmen Pannulla v. Samuel Rosenberg, Director of Public Safety and John Murphy Inspector of Vice Squad.

Proceeding upon petition for return of money seized by police during raid for pool selling and bookmaking. Before Bok, P.J. without a jury.

Order entered denying petition. Petitioner appealed.

Wm. J. Woolston, with him Louis Lipschitz, for appellant.

Richardson Dilworth, District Attorney, with him Thomas M. Reed, Assistant District Attorney, John T. Curtin, Assistant District Attorney, and Michael von Moschzisker, First Assistant District Attorney, for appellees.

Rhodes P. J., Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

OPINION

RENO, J.

Petitioner was arrested on a charge of pool selling and bookmaking on horse races. Police officers seized and confiscated $ 600 found in his bureau drawer. He petitioned the court below for an order directing Samuel Rosenberg, Director of Public Safety, and John Murphy, Inspector of the Vice Squad, to return the money to him. After taking the testimony the petition was refused.

The proceeding is in rem and the Commonwealth is not held to the same degree of proof required in a criminal trial. Denial of appellant's petition must be affirmed if from the testimony the trial judge could reasonably infer that the fund was an integral part of petitioner's gambling activities. Com. v. Petrillo, 158 Pa.Super. 354, 45 A.2d 404. See also Urban's Appeal, 148 Pa.Super. 101, 24 A.2d 756; In Re Petition of Supt. of Police, 113 Pa.Super. 520, 173 A. 753.

At the time of the raid on petitioner's apartment police officers found 200 bets, bookmaking sheets; and $ 94, admittedly received from bookmaking, was taken from his jacket pocket. The $ 600, the money in controversy, was found in petitioner's adjoining bedroom, in the bottom bureau drawer underneath some clothes, in $ 10 and $ 20 denominations. Petitioner contends that this money was not derived from bookmaking but represented savings from a service disability pension of $ 30 per month, and earnings as a "landscape gardener." He had previously stated to police officers that he had been bookmaking on horse racing bets for a year and a half, backing his own bets, and that he had no legitimate business but occasionally helped his mother with her gardening. The learned trial judge found petitioner's story incredible.

It is well settled that money may be subject to seizure, along with gambling devices, if it is an integral part of the illegal gambling operation when seized. Rosen v. Supt. Police Le Strange, 120 Pa.Super. 59, 181 A. 797; Fairmount Engine Co. v. Montgomery County, 135 Pa.Super. 367, 5 A.2d 419; Schuettler v. Maurer, 159 Pa.Super. 110 46 A.2d 586. We are satisfied, as was the court below, that the $ 600 represented bets...