United States v. Blalock, Cr. No. 22244.
Decision Date | 22 June 1966 |
Docket Number | Cr. No. 22244. |
Citation | 255 F. Supp. 268 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Clarence Edward BLALOCK. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Joseph R. Ritchie, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Samuel Dashiell, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
This is a motion to suppress twenty-one twenty dollar bills seized by the F.B. I. in a search of defendant's hotel room in Miami, Florida. At defendant's trial, I denied the motion, but later found it necessary to grant a new trial and a new hearing on the motion prior thereto. 253 F.Supp. 860 (E.D.Pa., 1966). From the testimony at that hearing I find these to have been the relevant circumstances:
Defendant was suspected of robbing the Parke Towne Branch of the Broad Street Trust Company. The bank had kept in its cash drawers "bait money", the serial numbers of which had previously been recorded. On the night of July 24, 1965, three agents of the F.B.I. encountered defendant as he entered his hotel lobby. They had no search warrant. After identifying themselves and after some preliminary questioning, defendant, accompanied by an agent, went to the men's room where he was frisked. The defendant and the agents then proceeded to his room. Defendant opened the door of the room and the party entered. One of the agents questioned defendant about the Philadelphia robbery, but defendant denied any knowledge of the crime. One of the agents then asked defendant whether, since he was not involved in the robbery, he would mind if they searched his room. Defendant replied that he had no objection. It was during the search which then ensued that the money was found.
Generally speaking, a warrantless search and seizure is regarded as unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment. Judd v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 64, 190 F.2d 649 (1951). In order to overcome the prima facie unconstitutionality of the search here involved, the Government relies solely on the asserted consent of the defendant to the search, in other words, a waiver by defendant of his Fourth Amendment right. However, rights given by the Constitution are too fundamental and too precious for waiver lightly to be found. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Whiting v. Cavell, 244 F.Supp. 560, 567 (M.D.Pa., 1965), aff'd per curiam, 358 F.2d 132 (C.A.3, 1966). It is only where there is "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege," Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) that an effective waiver can be found. * * *"Channel v. United States, 285 F.2d 217, 219-220 (C.A.9, 1960). It is apparent that where consent is relied upon to validate a warrantless search, the Government must prove that the consent was (a) intelligent and (b) voluntary. In Wren v. United States, 352 F.2d 617, at page 618 (C.A.10, 1965), the Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Thomas
...485, 423 P.2d 557). Federal decisions go both ways. (Cf. United States v. Nikrasch, 7 Cir., 367 F.2d 740, 744 and United States v. Blalock, D.C., 255 F.Supp. 268 with United States ex rel. Harris v. Hendricks, 3 Cir., 423 F.2d 1096, 1101; United States ex rel. Combs v. LaVallee, 2 Cir., 417......
-
Leavitt v. Howard
...supra, 380 F.2d at 163. The question of intelligent waiver was seen as distinct from the issue of voluntariness in United States v. Blalock, 255 F.Supp. 268 (E.D. Pa.1966). While Gorman rejects Blalock's precise holding that a specific Fourth Amendment warning must be given to validate a wa......
-
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 8212 732
...But see, United States v. Nikrasch, 367 F.2d 740, 744 (CA7); United States v. Moderacki, 280 F.Supp. 633 (D.Del); United States v. Blalock, 255 F.Supp. 268 (ED Pa.). While there is dictum in Nikrasch to the effect that warnings are necessary for an effective Fourth Amendment consent, the Co......
-
United States v. Sheard
...we need not dispose of such an issue at this time. 8 See United States v. Moderacki, 280 F. Supp. 633 (D.Del.1968); United States v. Blalock, 255 F.Supp. 268 (E.D.Pa. 1966); United States v. Nikrasch, 367 F.2d 740 (7th Cir. 1966). But see United States ex rel Combs v. LaVallee, 417 F.2d 523......