United States v. Cangelose
Decision Date | 12 June 1964 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 64-Cr-3002. |
Citation | 230 F. Supp. 544 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Louis CANGELOSE, also known as Louis Mallo, Louie Zicarelli, and Dominic J. Cervello, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Donald E. O'Brien, U. S. Atty., Sioux City, Iowa, for plaintiff.
James L. Williams, Kansas City, Mo., Frank J. Margolin, Sioux City, Iowa, James P. Quinn, Kansas City, Mo., Warren R. Stienstra, Sioux City, Iowa, for defendants.
This is a ruling on a motion to suppress certain evidence. The petitioners were in South Dakota hunting pheasants near Brookings. Louis Cangelose is well known to the Government agents and is under constant surveillance. This is not true of Louie Zicarelli and Dominic J. Cervello. When Cangelose and his two companions left Kansas City they were followed to Brookings, South Dakota. Other agents were notified who then came to South Dakota. A possibility of catching Cangelose in a violation of Title 15, Section 902(e) was contemplated. This section states in part that: "It shall be unlawful for any person * * * who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year * * * transport or cause to be shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition."
The petitioners were kept under surveillance while at Brookings, South Dakota. When the petitioners checked out of their motel at Brookings at the conclusion of their hunting trip, they were watched by officers in a car proceeding in front of them and by officers in a car following them until petitioners crossed into Iowa. At that time, they were stopped, arrested, and searched. It does appear that in the heavy traffic around Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the officers lost track of the petitioners for some time but relocated them again on U. S. Highway No. 29 going south. The officers were in constant radio communication with each other and sheriffs' offices in the vicinity. Brookings is about 140 to 150 miles mostly north of Sioux City, Iowa, where the petitioners were stopped.
The officers who searched and arrested the petitioners had neither arrest nor search warrants.
Louis Cangelose was indicted under Section 902(e). Louie Zicarelli was indicted under Section 902(e), Title 15, and Section 2, Title 18. Dominic J. Cervello was indicted under Section 902(g).
The automobile in which the petitioners were riding was being operated by Cervello. It was owned by Cangelose's wife. At the time the petitioners were stopped and searched at Sioux City, this car was searched and six shotguns were found. The petitioners prayed that all property seized through the search be returned, that all information, memoranda, data, evidence, and exhibits obtained through or by reason of the search and seizure be suppressed, and that the United States District Attorney and agents be prohibited from offering any such evidence at the trial.
The question here is whether under all the circumstances the search and seizure was reasonable or unreasonable. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777; Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856. Since Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145, searches without a warrant have been justified by being incident to a lawful arrest. There need not be a warrant for arrest if the arrest is otherwise lawful. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 41, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726. The question as to whether the arrest must precede the search to make the search incidental and reasonable was raised and left unanswered in Ker v. California, supra, 374 U.S. p. 43, 83 S.Ct. 1623. The answer to this question is important in this case.
Mr. Piper, one of the Government agents, testified in part on direct examination as follows:
On cross-examination, Mr. Piper testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Cockrell
...constitute for all practical purposes but one transaction. (Holt v. Simpson (1965) 7 Cir., 340 F.2d 853, 856; see United States v. Cangelose (1964) D.C., 230 F.Supp. 544, 550; but see Lee v. United States (1956) 98 U.S.App.D.C. 97, 232 F.2d 354, 355-356; Hurst v. People of State of Californ......
-
State v. Johnson, 51634
...339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653; Stoner v. State of California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856; United States v. Cangelose, D.C., 230 F.Supp. 544. This is especially true where there is a voluntary consent to the test. The rule is otherwise where the arrest was unlawful,......
- Schwartz v. United States
-
State v. Johnson, 57284
...v. Skinner, 412 F.2d 98, 102, 103 (8th Cir. 1969); Feguer v. United States, 302 F.2d 214, 245 (8th Cir. 1962); United States v. Cangelose, 230 F.Supp. 544, 550 (N.D.Iowa 1964). The following appears in Skinner, where it was claimed a search was not incidental to an arrest because it was all......