Somer v. United States, 63.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 63.,63. |
| Citation | 138 F.2d 790 |
| Parties | SOMER et ux. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Morris E. Packer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellants.
Vine H. Smith, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and Harold M. Kennedy, U. S. Atty., and Herbert I. Sarin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellee.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order which in part denied a motion made before indictment of Somer, the appellant, and his wife, to suppress evidence seized upon a search. Somer lived in an apartment in Brooklyn where he was operating an illicit still; during his absence two "Investigators of the Alcohol Tax Unit," followed shortly thereafter by a policeman, went to the apartment and entered under circumstances which, as the district judge found, made their entrance unlawful. Somer's wife was at home at the time, and the officers, finding the still in actual operation, asked her where her husband was. She answered that he was out; that he delivered the "stuff"; and that "he would be back shortly." Having searched the apartment and the cellar to their satisfaction, the two officers went to the street in reliance upon what Somer's wife had told them; and in about twenty minutes he arrived in a motor-car with his son and stopped in front of the building. The officers could see behind the front seat a five-pound package, marked "granulated sugar," which on inquiry Somer acknowledged to be his. Detecting the smell of alcohol, with which they were familiar, the officers then asked Somer whether he had any in the car. He answered that he had, and, going round to the rear, opened it and showed them two jugs of alcohol. They then arrested him and seized the sugar and the alcohol. On this showing, although the judge ordered "all evidence and information obtained * * * as the result of a search and seizure in the apartment * * * and the cellar" to be "suppressed," he denied "the motion to suppress any evidence seized * * * as a result of the seach" of the motor car or "on the person" of Somer. The prosecution does not challenge so much of the order as declared invalid the search of the apartment; but Somer has appealed from that part which refused to suppress the evidence found in the motor car and on his person.
When they made the arrest and search the officers did not act alone upon what Somer's wife had told them; they had already had "confidential information" about his doings before they went to the apartment at all, information whose source and details they, however, refused to divulge. It may be assumed that this was in part the basis of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Edwards
...at by exploitation of' the prior illegal search, and the evidence should therefore have been excluded. (See, e.g., Somer v. United States, 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 790, 791; United States v. Paroutian, 2 Cir., 299 F.2d 486, 488--490; People v. Stoner, 65 Cal.2d 595, 602--603, fn. 3, 55 Cal.Rptr. 89......
-
State v. Williams
...as inadequate the Government's claim that evidence "might" have been discovered independently). See also Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790, 792 (2d Cir. 1943) (Learned Hand, J.). And the state courts which have recently been confronted with the issue appear to be nearly unanimous in thei......
-
Bartram v. State
...55 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 307 (1964). Judge Learned Hand came to grips with inevitable discovery as early as 1943 in Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790, 792 (2d Cir. 1943). An illegal entry into a defendant's apartment and an interrogation there of the defendant's wife assisted agents in 'sta......
-
Lockridge v. Superior Court
...443--444, 20 Cal.Rptr. 165, 369 P.2d 714; Wayne v. United States (1963) 115 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 318 F.2d 205, 209; Somer v. United States (2d Cir. 1943) 138 F.2d 790, 792; cf. People v. Stoner, supra, 65 Cal.2d 595, 602--603, fn. 3, 55 Cal.Rptr. 897, 422 P.2d 585, see also R. Maguire, How to ......
-
THE CORROSIVE EFFECT OF INEVITABLE DISCOVERY ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
...HOWARD L.J. 1005, 1022-32 (1985) (overviewing the historical development of the independent source doctrine). (25) Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2d Cir. 1943); see Bloom, supra note 22, at 82 (describing Somer as the "genesis" of the doctrine); Harold S. Novikoff, Note, The Inevitab......