United States v. Abel, Crim. No. 45094.

Decision Date11 October 1957
Docket NumberCrim. No. 45094.
Citation155 F. Supp. 8
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, v. Rudolf Ivanovich ABEL, also known as "Mark" and also known as Martin Collins and Emil R. Goldfus, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

William F. Tompkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kevin T. Maroney, James J. Featherstone, Special Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Anthony R. Palermo, Special Atty., Dept. of Justice, Rochester, N. Y., for the United States.

James B. Donovan and Arnold G. Fraiman, New York City, for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

This is a defendant's motion made in this court on October 2, 1957, under Fed. Rules Crim.Proc. rule 41(e), 18 U.S.C.A., for the return and suppression for use as evidence, of any and all property seized on June 21, 1957 in Room 839 of the Hotel Latham (Manhattan) because, as alleged, such property was illegally seized without warrant and contrary to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Hearings were conducted in open court on October 8 and 9, by way of supplementing the original affidavit of the defendant verified September 13, 1957, which was filed as part of a special proceeding in the Southern District. Pursuant to the opinion of Judge Ryan of that court dated October 2, that proceeding was dismissed with leave to the defendant to move in this court.

By affidavit filed October 8, the defendant's chief counsel thus succinctly states the issue:

"The defendant maintains that the true objective of the Department of Justice in conducting the search and seizure at the Hotel Latham on June 21, 1957 was to obtain any espionage material possessed by a suspected Soviet agent in Room 839;
"The Government, in the affidavits most recently submitted in its behalf, apparently denies this contention."

On June 21, 1957 the defendant was arrested at his room in the said hotel at about 7:30 a. m. by agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (which is an integral part of the Department of Justice), pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the Department of Justice (Immigration and Naturalization Service) bearing date June 20, 1957; at that time there was served upon him an order to show cause in which it is recited that it appears that he is in the United States in violation of law in that he is not a citizen or national of the United States but is a national of Russia, namely, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and that he entered the United States at an unknown point across the border from Canada, in 1949.

That he failed to notify the Attorney General of his address during January of 1956 and during January of 1957; that he did not furnish notice of his address because he feared that by so doing he would disclose his illegal presence in the United States; that he is subject to being taken into custody and deported pursuant to Section 241(a)5 (8 U.S.C.A. § 1251) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, having failed to furnish notification of his address in compliance with Section 265 of that Act (8 U.S.C.A. § 1305), and had not established that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not wilful. The defendant was named in both the warrant and the order to show cause as Martin Collins alias Emil R. Goldfuss.

All papers used in the Southern District are now before this court on this motion.

At the request of the defendant a hearing was conducted on October 8 and 9 for the purpose of taking the oral testimony of the Government agents whose affidavits had originally been filed in opposition to the motion.

The following witnesses testified:

Robert E. Schoenenberger, a Supervisory Investigator with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, U. S. Department of Justice;

Edward J. Farley, a Supervisory Investigator with the Immigration and Naturalization Service;

Lennox Kanzler, Divisional Investigator with the Immigration and Naturalization Service;

Paul J. Blasco, Special Agent of the F.B.I. assigned to the New York Office;

Mario Noto, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Special Investigations, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The first three witnesses testified to what took place on the occasion of the arrest of the defendant. It is to be remembered that he had not thus far disclosed his true name; the warrant for arrest and order to show cause having been issued by the Immigration authorities, as stated, were in the possession of Schoenenberger, and he with Edward Farley and Edward Boyle, Immigration Investigators, entered the room of the suspect at about 7:30 a. m., and it was approximately at that hour that the arrest was made.

Special Agents of the F.B.I. Gamber and Blasco, pursuant to agreement with the Immigration officials, had entered Room 839 in that hotel at about 7:00 o'clock, and they interviewed the person who subsequently proved to be this defendant; as Blasco testified, their object was to induce him to cooperate in their efforts to learn something about this individual. Another Special Agent, Phelan, was also present, and all three identified themselves and stated the reason for their presence.

Blasco's testimony is quite explicit as to the questions which they asked after having explained their special duty involved alleged violations of matters touching the internal security of the United States and that such was the special object of their inquiry.

The man then known as Collins was asked his name, the date of his birth which he first stated to be either June 15 or July 15, 1897, but he did not explain why he first gave one month and then the other; he stated that he had been born in New York City and that he lived at the hotel but did not answer when asked how long he had resided there; the same silence met the question as to where he had lived prior to coming to the hotel. He said that his mother's name was Mertha Collins and that her maiden name was Rollins. He stated that he was not employed and had not been for some time; he failed to state when he had been last employed or to give the name of his father. He stated that he had no brothers or sisters or other relatives in the United States; that he had resided most of his life in New York City.

He was told that the Agents would like to have his cooperation in answering these questions and that if he failed to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Elkins
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • December 28, 1966
    ...the coded message was one of the subjects of a motion to suppress duly made in the Federal District Court and the motion was denied. 155 F.Supp. 8. The Abel case quotes from the proceedings had in the Federal District Court which discloses that it was admitted that a proper arrest was made,......
  • Abel v. United States, 2
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1960
    ... ... Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., 5(a) and (c), 18 U.S.C.A. This Court has been astute to fashion methods of ensuring the due observance of these safeguards. Henry v. United ... ...
  • United States v. Abel
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 11, 1958
    ...of an alleged unlawful search and seizure. The motion was heard by Judge Byers who, after a hearing, denied it in an opinion reported at 155 F.Supp. 8. The appellant was tried to a jury and convicted on each of the counts in the indictment. On November 15, 1957 he was sentenced to a total o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT