United States v. Carignan, Crim. A. No. 64-131-J.

Decision Date19 June 1967
Docket NumberCrim. A. No. 64-131-J.
Citation286 F. Supp. 284
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Richard A. CARIGNAN and Roger R. Carignan, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., A. David Mazzone, Edward Lee, Asst. U. S. Attys., for the United States.

Joseph S. Oteri, Boston, Mass., for Roger Carignan.

Monroe L. Inker, Kevin M. Keating, Boston, Mass., for Richard Carignan.

MEMORANDUM

JULIAN, District Judge.

The defendant Roger R. Carignan has brought a motion for the return and suppression as evidence of certain property seized by FBI agents at the premises of 171 Gerrish Avenue, Dracut, Massachusetts, on May 15, 1964. A hearing was held, and on the basis of the evidence presented I make the following findings of fact.

On May 15, 1964, Agents Rico and Sweeney of the Federal Bureau of Investigation met with an Assistant United States Attorney. It was decided that application would be made for a search warrant on the basis of an affidavit signed by Rico. A search warrant was prepared stating the name of Rico as affiant. However, subsequent to the preparation of the search warrant and affidavit, it was determined that Sweeney had a more complete personal knowledge of the history of the investigation and would be able to give a more detailed affidavit. As a result, a new affidavit was prepared for the signature of Sweeney. Due to an oversight, mistake or carelessness, the original search warrant was not changed to reflect that Sweeney, and not Rico, was the supporting affiant.

The search warrant and new affidavit were attached together and brought to United States Commissioner Nelligan, where Sweeney signed the affidavit under the oath administered to him by the Commissioner. The Commissioner thereupon issued the search warrant for the premises of 171 Gerrish Avenue, and an arrest warrant for Roger Carignan.

At about 7 p. m. Sweeney and several other agents arrived at the premises in Dracut, a one-family dwelling which was the home of the defendant's mother. The defendant was also living there at this time and kept personal belongings in his bedroom on the second floor. Sweeney went to the side entrance and knocked. He identified himself to the defendant's sister, who came to the door, and told her that he had an arrest warrant for Roger and a search warrant for the house. She admitted Sweeney to the kitchen. Shortly thereafter the defendant and his mother, Mrs. Langlais, came into the kitchen.

At about 7:08 p. m. Agent Whalen came into the room with two other agents and placed Roger under arrest. At 7:10 p. m. Agents Condon, Schwotzer and Scott went upstairs with Mrs. Langlais to search Roger's room. At 7:20 p. m. Agents Whalen, Sheehan and Keough took Roger out to an FBI car and drove him to the FBI office on Atlantic Avenue in Boston. Thereafter, at about 7:46 p. m., Agent Condon found a radio in the closet of Roger's upstairs bedroom. On opening the back of the radio he found cash amounting to $30,800.

The defendant was indicted for armed robbery of the Arlington Trust Company, Jackson Street Branch, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Theodor v. Superior Court, Orange County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 1971
    ...v. Ortiz, D.C., 311 F.Supp. 880 (assuming, but not deciding); United States v. Averell, D.C., 296 F.Supp. 1004 (same); United States v. Carignan, D.C., 286 F.Supp. 284; United States v. Halsey, D.C., 257 F.Supp. 1002; United States v. Henderson, D.C., 17 F.R.D. 1; Lerner v. United States, D......
  • Com. v. Hall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1975
    ...though they were related to the suspect, it was not claimed that they themselves engaged in criminal activity. See United States v. Carignan, 286 F.Supp. 284 (D.Mass.1967) (mother at home); United States v. Wilcox, 357 F.Supp. 514 (E.D.Pa.1973) (estranged wife at home).16 Compare Commonweal......
  • United States v. Curwood
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • February 25, 1972
    ...15 Defendants also rely upon the cases of King v. United States, 282 F.2d 398, 400 n. 4 (4th Cir. 1960) and United States v. Carignan, 286 F.Supp. 284 (D.Mass. 1967). Their reliance, however, is misplaced, as neither case is in 16 19 U.S.C. § 1595(a) provides in pertinent part: "If any coll......
  • United States v. Focarile
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • February 22, 1972
    ...design or by mistake, the warrant has been declared invalid. King v. United States, 282 F.2d 398 (4th Cir. 1960); United States v. Carignan, 286 F.Supp. 284 (D. Mass.1967); but see United States v. Averell, 296 F.Supp. 1004, 1015 (E.D. N.Y.1969). Similarly the statutory scheme of Title III ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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