United States v. Ghiorsi
| Decision Date | 08 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 20531K.,20531K. |
| Citation | 31 F.2d 440 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. GHIORSI |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
George J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and L. E. Kilkenny, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Harold C. Faulkner, of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
This is a motion to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence. The warrant in question authorizes a nighttime search, and the search was in fact made at night. The objection made is that the affidavit in support of the warrant is not positive in its statement that the property to be searched for was at the place to be searched at the time of the issuance of the search warrant. The material portion of the affidavit is as follows:
"That in and upon said premises, on or about the 16th day of January, 1929, a crime against the government of the United States of America, in violation of the National Prohibition Act and in violation of the internal revenue laws relating to the manufacture, sale, transportation, control, and taxation of intoxicating liquors, was and now is being committed, in this: That Jane Doe, described as follows: Black mark on right lower lip; plain old style wedding ring on finger; Italian, about 32 years of age, about 5 feet 4 inches in height, and about 130 pounds in weight — on or about said day on said premises and thereafter and now is keeping, selling, possessing, bartering, and/or transporting intoxicating liquor, all for beverage purposes, and the containers therefor, without paying the taxes due the United States, and that said person is in possession on said premises of papers and documents relating to said acts; and affiant states that he knows the foregoing to be true because, on the 16th day of January, 1929, he purchased in the above-named premises, one gallon of wine, for which he paid the sum of $3.00, to the above-described Jane Doe."
This affidavit was made and the search warrant issued on January 17, 1929; i. e., within 24 hours after the affiant had made a purchase of wine in the premises. Ordinarily, economy of statement in legal documents, including affidavits, is commendable. In affidavits made to support search warrants, however, the task of the court is not made easier by the omission of details as to the circumstances relied upon as establishing probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. This comment is made merely by way of suggestion as to future affidavits, as I believe, despite its economy of detail, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Appleton
...to be searched on the day before the making of the affidavit. United States v. Barbini, 1928, D.C.Cal., 26 F.2d 237; United States v. Ghiorsi, 1929, D.C.Cal., 31 F.2d 440; Ewing v. United States, 1930, 5 Cir., 37 F.2d 287. To the contrary, United States v. Sands, 1926, D.C.Wash., 14 F.2d 67......
-
United States v. Plemmons
...were made in Jacobs v. United States, 58 App.D.C. 62, 24 F.2d 890; United States v. Barbini, 26 F.2d 237 (N.D.Calif.); United States v. Ghiorsi, 31 F.2d 440 (N.D.Calif.). In each case an affidavit was upheld which recited the fact of a single previous purchase in support to a positive averm......
-
People v. Santora
...may reasonably conclude that the liquor or other property subject to seizure is at the time on the premises' (Also see United States v. Ghiorsi, 31 F.2d 440 [N.D.Cal.1929]; United States v. Barbini, 26 F.2d 237 [N.D.Cal.1928]; Fry v. United States, 9 F.2d 38 [9th Cir. 1925]; United States v......
-
The Modern Penny Dreadful: Public Prosecution and the Need for Litigation Privacy in a Digital Age
...See Swanne Soon Young Pang v. United States, 209 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1953) (protecting a sex-trafficking victim); United States v. Ghiorsi, 31 F.2d 440 (N.D. Cal. 1929) (protecting an eyewitness in a Prohibition-related 95. U.S. CONST. amend. I ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging th......