United States v. Diange, 10501.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 10501.,10501. |
| Citation | 32 F. Supp. 994 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. DIANGE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
George Mashank, Acting U. S. Atty., of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Harold L. Rothman, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
On November 25, 1939, defendant presented his petition to this court, wherein he prayed that search warrants issued by the Government May 27, 1939, June 14, 1939, and July 28, 1939, be held illegal and that the evidence procured thereby be suppressed.
At the hearing on said petition, the Government conceded that the search warrant issued June 14, 1939, should be held illegal and any evidence procured thereby be suppressed. The Court, in an opinion filed February 27, 1940, held that the search warrants issued May 27, 1939, and July 28, 1939, were not illegally issued by reason of the fact alleged in the petition that said search warrants failed to name the person whose property was to be searched, and an order was made accordingly. 32 F.Supp. 14.
On April 20, 1940, defendant filed another petition, wherein he prays that search warrants issued May 27, 1939, July 28, 1939, and January 2, 1940, be held illegal and any evidence procured thereby be suppressed, on the ground that said search warrants described only a dwelling-house; that said dwelling-house was occupied and used by two different families who occupied and possessed different parts thereof. At the hearing held on this petition, which was prior to the trial on the indictment, it was conceded that the property was a dwelling-house; that it contained two stories and that it was occupied and in possession of two families, each family being in possession of a different part of said dwelling-house.
Under the facts, as conceded, the description of the property contained in the aforesaid search warrants was not in sufficient compliance with the Fourth Amendment or the Act of June 15, 1917, 18 U.S. C.A. § 611 et seq. United States v. Louis Fretangelo,1 616 Misc., (W.D. Pa.) and cases therein cited.
The decision made by this court on the petition of defendant filed November 25, 1939, is not res adjudicata. In Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 224, 49 S. Ct. 118, 119, 73 L.Ed. 275, it is stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court written by Mr. Justice Brandeis: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Montijo-Gonzalez
...States v. Votteller, 544 F.2d 1355 (6th Cir.1976); United States v. Esters, 336 F.Supp. 214, 218 (E.D.Mich.1972); United States v. Diange, 32 F.Supp. 994 (W.D.Pa.1940). The validity of a warrant issued to search a multiple occupancy structure may be challenged on various grounds, depending ......
-
Commonwealth v. Turpin
...United States v. Hinton , 219 F.2d 324, 326 (7th Cir. 1955) (emphasis added by appellant). Appellant further cites United States v. Diange , 32 F.Supp. 994 (W.D. Pa. 1940), for the proposition that "a search warrant describing the entire dwelling-house will be insufficient where ‘each famil......
-
Butler v. State
...7 Cir., 448 F.2d 604; Moore v. United States, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 150, 461 F.2d 1236; Houser v. Geary, 9 Cir., 465 F.2d 193; United States v. Diange, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 994, and United States v. Esters, D.C., 336 F.Supp. 214, as supporting his view. We find some of the cases cited by appellant a......
-
Com. v. Erickson
...v. Whitney, 633 F.2d 902, 907 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1004, 101 S.Ct. 1717, 68 L.Ed.2d 208 (1981); United States v. Diange, 32 F.Supp. 994 (W.D.Pa.1940). 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 4.5(b) (1978). Annot., Search Warrant: Sufficiency of Description of Apartment or Room to ......