United States v. Goodman, Crim. No. 69 HCr 36.

• Decision Date: 20 March 1970
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 69 HCr 36.
• Citation: 312 F. Supp. 556
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Raymond Morris GOODMAN et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

312 F. Supp. 556

UNITED STATES of America v. Raymond Morris GOODMAN et al.

Crim. No. 69 HCr 36.

United States District Court, N. D. Indiana, Hammond Division.

March 20, 1970.

Marvin Loewy, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., William C. Lee, U. S. Atty., Fort Wayne, Ind., J. Frank Kimbrough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Hammond, Ind., for the United States.

Charles Grubb, Cedar Lake, Ind., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

BEAMER, District Judge.

On October 29, 1968, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) conducted a search pursuant to a search warrant issued by the United States Commissioner at Hammond, Indiana. The defendants seek to suppress evidence and to obtain the return of the gambling paraphernalia seized by agents during that search.

The search warrant stated that various types of gambling paraphernalia for use in horse race betting were concealed on the premises described as: "The room on the first floor level at the front of a two-story building located at 517 Conkey Street, Hammond, Indiana, the entrance to said room being at the front of said building. Within this room is contained a desk, drawers, cabinets and containers of various descriptions. * * *"

The Government admits that the premises searched were in fact 519 Conkey Street, not 517 Conkey Street. The property is listed as 519 Conkey Street in the County Assessor's office. Testimony at the hearing disclosed that a number 519 was painted on the window glass in the transom above the door on the front of the building. The paint was faded; because of the awning over the front of the building, the numbers could only be seen from the sidewalk in front of the entrance. The Hammond City Directory, which was relied upon by the agents in determining the address used in the warrant, lists Marty's Restaurant and Lounge as 519 Conkey Street. The City Directory has no listing for 517 Conkey Street. Since the agents intended to search the room immediately west of Marty's Tap, the agents assumed that 517 was the proper number.

Although the search warrant bore the incorrect street number, it is the opinion of this Court that the warrant sufficiently described the premises to be searched and was not illegally executed.

The Supreme Court has stated the test for determining the sufficiency of a description in a search warrant in Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 417, 69 L.Ed. 757, 760 (1925):

It is enough if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended.

In interpreting this rule, Judge Mansfield stated in United States v. Gomez, 42 F.R.D. 347 (S.D.N.Y.1967):

The standard for determining whether a search warrant complies with Constitutional requirements is one of practical accuracy rather than technical nicety.

At the time the search warrant in this case was executed, the agents had in their possession the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based. The affidavit twice referred to the premises to be searched as "the room located immediately next door to Marty's Tap." The affidavit refers to Marty's Tap as being 519 Conkey Street. Directly east of Marty's Tap is Van Buren Avenue. Immediately west of Marty's Tap are those premises which were in fact searched. The description in the affidavit of "the room located immediately next door to Marty's Tap" thus unmistakably locates the premises to be searched as those occupied by Goodman.

It does not appear that any mistake could have been made in the building to be searched. No building or room on the block...