United States v. Baldocci, 22154-L.
| Citation | 42 F.2d 567 |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 22154-L.,22154-L. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BALDOCCI et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
George J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and C. M. Carpenter, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Wm. J. Gloria, of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
Petition to exclude and suppress evidence as to defendant Belli.
Narcotic agents of the government received information that defendant Belli, heretofore convicted of violating the Harrison Narcotic Act, had been furnishing certain addict prisoners in the San Francisco county jail with morphine, concealed in rocks and tennis balls which were thrown over the yard walls of the jail at night and picked up by addict inmates in the morning.
On May 27, 1930, at 8 o'clock p. m., narcotic agents secreted themselves near the jail. About 10 o'clock p. m. defendant and three others came in an automobile, driven by Belli, to where one of the officers was stationed, and all were arrested. Search of the defendants' persons and of defendant Belli's car revealed no narcotics. Agent Elliott then took charge of defendant Belli, and, with reference to later happenings, testifies that he asked Belli why he was in such a place at that hour of the night, and Belli replied, "I came out to see if the coast was clear." Elliott asked Belli where he lived, and Belli refused to say. Elliott told Belli that he knew he lived at No. 817 Hayes street, and ordered Belli to drive there. Elliott got into Belli's car, and Belli drove to his home. On arriving at Belli's residence, Elliott asked him, "Will you allow me to enter, or will I go and obtain a search warrant?" or words to that effect. Belli answered, "All right, you may enter," or words to that effect. According to Elliott, defendant Belli then handed his keys to Mrs. Belli, who opened the door and admitted the officers. About eighty grains of morphine were found in the premises.
After the prisoners were taken to jail, the officers returned to the scene of the arrest and searched the neighborhood. On the sidewalk, near where defendants were placed under arrest, the officers found a rock, drilled out, containing twenty grains of morphine.
Defendant Belli contends that the search and seizure was in violation of, and contrary to, the provisions of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
The officers had no warrant for the arrest of defendant Belli, nor any of the defendants, nor did they have any search warrant. No crime was committed in the presence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Douglas
...v. Boukater, Supra, 409 F.2d at 538 n. 2; and United States v. Manarite, 314 F.Supp. 607, 613 (SDNY 1970). But see United States v. Baldocci, 42 F.2d 567 (ND Cal 1930); United States v. Minor, 117 F.Supp. 697, 698 (ED Okla 1953); and State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 454 P.2d 360, 363 None of th......
-
United States v. Page
...States v. Marra, D.C.N.D. N.Y., 1930, 40 F.2d 271; United States v. McCunn, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1930, 40 F.2d 295; United States v. Baldocci, D.C.S.D. Cal., 1930, 42 F.2d 567; United States v. Ruffner, D.C.Md., 1931, 51 F.2d 579; United States v. Hoffenberg, D.C.E.D. N.Y., 1938, 24 F.Supp. 989; U......
-
People v. Alaniz
...v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 215 F.2d 324, 326-327; Worthington v. United States, 6 Cir., 166 F.2d 557, 565-566; United States v. Baldocci, D.C., 42 F.2d 567; United States v. Tom Yu, D.C., 1 F.Supp. 357, 360; United States v. Castle, D.C., 138 F.Supp. 436, 439; Smallwood v. Commo......
-
Ex parte Dixon
...is not the consent which the law requires before a lawful search may be made. A forced consent is no consent at all. United States v. Baldocci, 9 Cir., 42 F.2d 567. In California, due to an unfortunate line of decisions, evidence illegally obtained is admissible in the courts. With these ho......