United States v. First National Bank of Pikeville

Decision Date27 June 1967
Docket NumberCiv. No. 1061.
Citation274 F. Supp. 283
PartiesUNITED STATES of America and Glen B. Johnson, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PIKEVILLE, Citizens Bank of Pikeville and Pikeville National Bank & Trust Co., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

George I. Cline, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., for the United States and others.

Stephens, Combs & Page, Pikeville, Ky., for First Nat. Bank of Pikeville.

Francis M. Burke, Pikeville, Ky., for Citizens Bank of Pikeville.

Francis Dale Burke and Ronald May, Pikeville, Ky., for Pikeville Nat. Bank & Trust Co.

Francis Dale Burke and Ronald V. May, Pikeville, Ky., for intervenors, Taylor Justice and Stella Justice.

Before CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge, and SWINFORD and MOYNAHAN, District Judges.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This action arises from efforts of the United States to examine certain bank records of various banks in Pikeville, Kentucky, in connection with an examination conducted by the Internal Revenue Service relative to the income tax liability of Taylor Justice and Stella Justice, for the years 1960-1963, inclusive.

In Justice v. United States, 365 F.2d 312, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit directed the filing of the Intervening Petition of the taxpayers.

In paragraph eighteen of the Intervening Complaint, the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of Title 26 U.S.C., Section 7604(a) and (b) and have demanded a restraining order, enjoining and restraining the enforcement of the summons issued herein pursuant to said statutory provision.

The undersigned Three Judge District Court was designated, pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 2284, to hear and determine the issue raised and proceeded on May 12, 1967, to hear the same.

The entire thrust of petitioners' argument is that the efforts of the United States are directed toward securing evidence to be used against the petitioners in a criminal proceeding and therefore the instant statutory proceeding is violative of the constitutional safeguards provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

An examination of the record fails to support the petitioners' charge that the real purpose of this proceeding is to secure information for use in a criminal action. Glen B. Johnson, the special agent conducting the investigation, testified on discovery that the purpose of the investigation was "to determine the accuracy of the income tax returns of the taxpayers." (See deposition of Glen B....

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Donaldson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1971
    ...States, 267 U.S. 576, 45 S.Ct. 231, 69 L.Ed. 796 (1925), aff'g 295 F. 142, 153 (SD Ala.1924). See also United States v. First Nat. Bank of Pikeville, 274 F.Supp. 283, 284 (ED Ky.1967), aff'd sub nom. Justice v. United States, 390 U.S. 199, 88 S.Ct. 901, 19 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1968), and United St......
  • Graf v. Barker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • March 23, 1976
    ...States, 267 U.S. 576, 45 S.Ct. 231, 69 L.Ed. 796 (1925), affirming, 295 F. 142, 143 (S.D. Ala.1924). See also United States v. First National Bank, 274 F.Supp. 283 (E.D.Ky.1967), affirmed sub nom., Justice v. United States, 390 U.S. 199, 88 S.Ct. 901, 19 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1968); United States v......
  • United States v. Roundtree
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 20, 1970
    ...405 F.2d 926, 928; Justice v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 199, 88 S.Ct. 901, 19 L.Ed.2d 1038 (mem.), aff'g United States v. First National Bank, 274 F. Supp. 283 (E.D.Ky.1967). 13 See note 3 14 See note 4 supra. 15 See United States v. Nunnally, 278 F. Supp. 843 (W.D.Tenn.1968); United St......
  • United States v. Rutland Hospital, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
    • December 28, 1970
    ...statute, thus construed, appears to be approximately coextensive with constitutional limitations. See United States v. First National Bank of Pikeville, 274 F.Supp. 283 (E.D.Ky.1967), aff'd Justice v. United States, 390 U.S. 199, 88 S.Ct. 901, 19 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1968); Reisman v. Caplin, 375 ......
  • 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