United States v. Chin On

• Decision Date: 21 March 1924
• Docket Number: 4857-4859.
• Citation: 297 F. 531
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. CHIN ON. SAME v. WONG YUEN. SAME v. CHARLIE WING.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

297 F. 531

UNITED STATES v. CHIN ON. SAME v. WONG YUEN. SAME v. CHARLIE WING.

Nos. 4857-4859.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

March 21, 1924

The United States Attorney.

Benjamin Dellheim, of Boston, Mass., for defendants.

MORTON District Judge.

These are motions to quash the indictments. Many grounds are set out, but those relied on are that the indictments were procured by the submission to the grand jury of evidence illegally obtained.

The facts are as follows:

The building, No. 24 Liberty street, Springfield, contains a shop on the street front; over the shop is a sort of club room frequented by Chinese; and over that a half attic where there are lodging rooms. Touching its rear end is another building facing the alley or yard and occupied throughout as a lodging house. On the testimony before me there is no connection between the two buildings. The rear building is not numbered. Inspector Kenefick, of the Narcotic Division, while on the second floor of the rear building, smelt opium smoke. He thereupon procured from United States Commissioner Gordon a search warrant, authorizing the search of--

'a room and rooms in a certain three-story building and is numbered 24 Liberty street, said rooms being on the third floor of said building, being occupied by John Doe, alias other and true name is unknown, known as Fook Tsue Sung, for the unlawful possession and sale of narcotic drugs.'

It authorized Thomas A. Kenefick, narcotic inspector, 'to forthwith enter into said building above described,' etc.

Under this warrant Kenefick entered a living apartment of three rooms on the top floor of the rear building. He found there the three defendants. Two of them were smoking opium when he entered; the third was just leaving. All three were then and there arrested. A considerable quantity of opium and paraphernalia for smoking it were also discovered and seized.

The warrant was issued under R.S. Sec. 3462 (Comp. St. Sec 6364). This statute is very broad in its terms; but it is, of course, to be construed in connection with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, under which a search warrant must 'particularly (describe) the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. ' Particularity of place means that any person familiar with the locality can by inquiry identify the premises which are described in the warrant.

This warrant, as I construe its slipshod language, authorizes the search of a room or rooms which were on the third floor of a building numbered 24 Liberty street and were occupied by a person whose true name was unknown, but who was also known as Fook Tsue Sung. On the testimony, he was a real person who occupied the next building, No. 23 Liberty street. He did not occupy the rooms searched. If both front and rear buildings be regarded as coming within the number, 24, which was on the front one, there were several rooms on the third floors. The warrant does not specify which of these is to be searched, except by the statement as to occupancy, which was entirely erroneous and of no assistance in locating them.

On these facts I find and rule that the warrant did not particularly describe the place to be searched and was on that account invalid, and the search under it was illegal. U.S. v....