United States v. Esposito

• Decision Date: 09 May 1942
• Docket Number: No. 9300.,9300.
• Citation: 45 F. Supp. 39
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. ESPOSITO et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

45 F. Supp. 39

UNITED STATES v. ESPOSITO et al.

No. 9300.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 9, 1942.

J. Lawrence Grim, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa. (Julian R. Eagle and Aaron D. Hockstein, both of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Thomas D. McBride, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

KALODNER, District Judge.

At 8:55 P. M. on November 13, 1941, two agents of the Alcohol Tax Unit pushed in the partly open door of a one-story garage attached to a private dwelling, and placed the defendants herein under arrest. At the same time, they searched the garage, and seized the following articles:

33 five-gallon cans of liquor 1 fifty-pound box of yeast 14 or 15 fifty-pound bags of chemicals 20 one-hundred pound bags of sugar 1 Buick car

All the articles were in the garage.

The defendants, in their separate petitions to suppress, claimed that the search and seizure were unlawful, being in contravention of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The government agents had had the garage under observation from July 30, 1941, to the date of the arrest, November 13, 1941. At various times within that period, they had observed one or the other, or both, defendants driving to and from the garage in the seized Buick automobile. At times, the Buick automobile left the garage unloaded, and with the rear seat missing from the car, and returned heavily loaded and with its contents covered by a blanket. On the day of the arrest, Esposito took a fifty-pound carton of yeast from the car into the garage. Both defendants were well-known to the officers as liquor law violators; the officers were well-known to the defendants; and both defendants had been arrested numerous times theretofore for violation of the Internal Revenue Laws.

The defendants contend:

(a) They were lessees of the garage;

(b) The search and seizure was made without a warrant;

(c) The agents acted without probable cause.

Without dwelling upon the testimony adduced in support of or against the petitions in any detail, I will state that so far as the record discloses, I find that the defendants were lessees of the garage. If they were not, they would be in no position to complain; since, even if the search and seizure were illegal, no rights of theirs would have been violated. Chepo v. United States, 3 Cir., 46 F.2d 70; Mello v. United States, 3 Cir., 66 F.2d 135.

If the facts observed by the government agents were such as to justify a reasonably prudent person in believing that the law had been or was being violated in the premises afterward searched, then there was probable cause for the search and seizure, and the petitions should be denied — and vice versa.

The rule is well formulated in Whitcombe v. United States, 3 Cir., 90 F.2d 290, 293, this Circuit, wherein the court said: "The rule is well settled that if a search and seizure, without warrant, are made upon probable cause, and the facts and circumstances justify a reasonably prudent person in believing that an offense has been committed or is being committed in or upon the premises searched, they are not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. citing cases * * *"

See, also, Mello v. United States, supra; Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, L.R.A. 1915B, 834, Ann.Cas.1915C, 1177; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790; Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145; United States v. Feldman, 3 Cir., 104 F.2d 255; Pong Ying v. United States, 3 Cir., 66 F.2d 67; Rocchia v. United States, 9 Cir., 78 F.2d 966; Mabee v. United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 209.

In Agnello v. United States, supra 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 5, 70 L.Ed. 145, the court said: "The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the place where the arrest is made in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect an escape from custody is not to be doubted. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 158, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790; Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, L.R.A.1915B, 834, Ann.Cas.1915C, 1177."

It is impossible, of course, to formulate any...