United States v. 1617 Fourth Ave., SW, 1-76-Mag-1
| Decision Date | 28 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | 1-76-Mag-2.,No. 1-76-Mag-1,1-76-Mag-1 |
| Citation | 406 F. Supp. 527 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. 1617 FOURTH AVENUE, S. W., ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA. UNITED STATES of America, v. 1724 HIAWATHA COURT, N. E., ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
James Malcolm Williams, Minneapolis, Minn., for movants Don Hanson and Donna W. Schuster.
Robert G. Renner, U. S. Atty., and Daniel M. Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty., for respondent U. S.
This matter is before the court on a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) for the return of property seized in connection with two federal search warrants executed on December 23, 1975. The property which was seized consists in part of tablets and vials of what is believed to be amygdalin, also known as laetrile. On January 9, 1976, subsequent to the filing of this motion, movants Hanson and Schuster were indicted by the Grand Jury for the Southern District of California on charges of smuggling certain merchandise, namely vials and tablets of "amygdalin" or "laetrile," in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 545. For the reasons that follow, we feel it is most appropriate to deny this motion without prejudice to the movants' right to reassert their arguments in the pending criminal action in the Southern District of California.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) enables a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure to have the seized property returned to him, and if a motion under the rule is granted, the property cannot be admissible in evidence at any hearing or trial. The last sentence of the Rule 41(c) provides that when such a motion is made in the district of trial after an indictment is filed, "it shall be treated also as a motion to suppress under Rule 12." Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e). Obviously, a Rule 41(e) motion is closely related to a motion to suppress.
There is a strong federal policy of discouraging motions to suppress in the district in which the property was seized when such motions can be made in the trial court. See Advisory Comm.Note (Comm. on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States) 56 F.R.D. 143, 170 (1972). Also, we find persuasive authority for declining jurisdiction of motions such as this in instances where there is a related criminal action pending in another district. See United States v. Lester, 21 F.R.D. 30 (S.D.N.Y.1957); United States v. Nelson, 274 F.Supp. 383 (S.D.Tex. 1967); see also Freedman v. United States, 421 F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 404 U.S. 992, 92 S.Ct. 538, 30 L.Ed.2d 544 (1971).
The reasons for adopting such a course are readily apparent. Letting the trial court decide the matter will avoid any needless duplication of effort by two courts and will provide an expeditious resolution of the controversy besides avoiding the risk of determining prematurely and inadequately the admissibility of evidence at trial. See United States v. Lester, supra. By declining jurisdiction in an instance such as this, we avoid invasion of the trial court's normal province to pass on the admissibility of evidence, and, at the same time, we do not jeopardize whatever rights a defendant may have for exclusion of evidence. See United States v. Koenig, 290 F.2d 166, 173 (5th Cir. 1961).
"A piecemeal adjudication such as that which would necessarily follow from a disposition of the motion here might conceivably result in prejudice either to the Government or the defendants, or both." United States v. Lester, supra, at 31. Jurisdiction under Rule 41(e) must be exercised with great restraint and caution since it rests upon the court's supervisory power over the actions of federal law enforcement officials. Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Comm. v. Hoover, 327 F.Supp. 238, 242 (S.D.N.Y.197...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kluger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...is part of the normal power of any trial court and is essential to the proper discharge of its duties. United States v. 1617 Fourth Avenue S.W., 406 F. Supp. 527, 528 (D. Minn. 1976). Indeed, this Court would be derelict in its duties if it refused to entertain questions regarding the admis......
-
Hanson v. United States, 4-76-Civ. 11.
...search warrants — must be rejected on the authority of Chief Judge Devitt's Order of January 28, 1976, in United States v. 1617 Fourth Avenue Southwest, D.Minn., 406 F.Supp. 527, 1-76-Mag-1. That Order was in response to the motion of the plaintiffs herein pursuant to Federal Rule of Crimin......
-
Pieper v. United States, Civ. 4-78-387.
...doctrine. See 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure — Criminal, § 673, at 105-06 (1969). Compare United States v. 1617 Fourth Ave., S.W., 406 F.Supp. 527, 529 (D.Minn.1976) (C. J. 2 In a supplemental memorandum, plaintiff raises the additional argument that FIFRA does not authorize th......
-
In re Grand Jury Proceedings Involving Berkley & Co., Misc. 3-79-3.
...party is suffering irreparable harm should the pre-indictment Rule 41(e) remedy be invoked. See, e. g., United States v. 1617 Fourth Ave. S.W., 406 F.Supp. 527 (D.Minn.1976). It was on these principles that the Iowa court deferred to the trial court. These same principles lead inevitably to......