U.S. v. Ruyle, 74-1822
| Decision Date | 04 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1822,74-1822 |
| Citation | 524 F.2d 1133 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Leon RUYLE and Medilab Company, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Philip A. Gillis, Detroit, Mich., for defendants-appellants.
Ralph B. Guy, Jr., U. S. Atty., Richard L. Delonis, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Ruyle waived trial by jury and was found guilty by the District Judge of knowing distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and intentionally furnishing false reports concerning controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(4). He was acquitted under five other counts. Though defendant was a registered distributor of controlled substances doing business as Medilab Company there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's findings that the sales for which he was convicted were made with knowledge that they were not authorized by his registration.
The conviction was based in part on records seized at defendant's home following his arrest by agents of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD). The agents did not have a search warrant for defendant's home, but did have an "administrative inspection warrant" for Medilab Company at an address which was about one block from his home. Pursuant to this warrant the agents were authorized "to enter the above described premises (the business establishment) at a reasonable time during ordinary business hours and to inspect in a reasonable manner and to a reasonable extent, including the collection of samples, if necessary, the establishment and all pertinent equipment, finished and unfinished materials, containers, and labeling thereon." Such warrants are authorized by the Federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 880.
It is clear that the inspection warrant gave the agents no authority to search defendant's home or seize any of his property there. However, one of the agents testified that immediately after arresting defendant pursuant to an arrest warrant and advising him of his Miranda rights the agent asked defendant where the records were located. Upon learning that the records were in the basement of defendant's home the agent advised defendant that the inspection warrant did not cover the situation and that defendant's consent would be required before the records could be removed from his home. The agent testified that he then read a "consent form" to defendant and that defendant signed the form. No search was conducted, but defendant and another agent went to the basement and picked up the records of defendant's drug business and the typewriter used by him in making the records. The substance of this testimony was confirmed by another BNDD agent who was present, but was disputed by the defendant and his wife.
At a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress the business records as evidence, and on appeal, defendant has maintained that his consent to the seizure of the records was not freely and voluntarily given. This contention is based on the fact that he was under arrest at the time he signed the consent and his testimony and that of his wife that the agents told him they had a warrant for the search of his home. In Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968), the Supreme Court held that a consent to search is not voluntary if it is based upon the statement by law enforcement officers that they have a warrant for search of the premises, stating:
When a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no right to resist the search. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Dyer
...States v. Y. Hata & Co., 535 F.2d 508 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 828, 97 S.Ct. 87, 50 L.Ed.2d 92 (1976); United States v. Ruyle, 524 F.2d 1133 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1664, 48 L.Ed.2d 175 (1976). "The function of a grand jury is investigative. Its procee......
-
U.S. v. Adamo
...not obligated to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. The question was squarely presented to this Court in United States v. Ruyle, 524 F.2d 1133 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1664, 45 L.Ed.2d 175 (1976), in which the Court affirmed the decision of then Dist......
-
United States v. DePalma
...of facts which would form the basis of a defense at trial. 8 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 6.032 at 6-40 (1977). See United States v. Ruyle, 524 F.2d 1133, 1136 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1664, 48 L.Ed.2d 175 (1976) (defendant not entitled to challenge indictment "on......
-
United States v. Nelson
...73, 50 L.Ed.2d 84 (1976). Nor is it obliged to present to the grand jury information favorable to the defendant. United States v. Ruyle, 524 F.2d 1133 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1664, 48 L.Ed.2d 175 (1976). Furthermore, unnecessary pre-trial dissection by the cour......
-
Congressional investigations: politics and process.
...(198.) See Upjohn, 494 U.S. at 393. (199.) See, e.g., United States v. Hyder, 732 F.2d 841, 844 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Ruyle, 524 F.2d 1133, 1135 (6th Cir. (200.) See Rich, supra note 186, at 169 ("Both grand juries and congressional committees exercise broad powers of inquiry, ......