United States v. Helbock, Civ. C-17040.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | Civ. C-17040. |
| Citation | 76 F. Supp. 985 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HELBOCK et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Henry L. Hess, U. S. Atty., and Floyd D. Hamilton, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Portland Or., for the United States.
David M. Spiegel of Portland, Or., for defendants.
Government agents have shown an alarming tendency of late to enter private homes.
This reflects, I think, the bad breakdown in constitutional standards under OPA and other wartime agencies, although I must confess I do not recall a single instance where OPA attempted to enter a private home.
There are so many constitutional defects in the search and seizure procedure followed by the inspector in this case, I will not attempt to enumerate them. It suffices that a postal inspector has no authority to make an arrest. It follows he has no authority either to make a search or to seize articles.
It may be claimed that the defendants turned over one thousand prints and photographs and their correspondence to the inspector voluntarily. But this is always claimed by agents, after they have gained entrance to a citizen's home, or place of business, by "showing their credentials", as was done in this case. The inspector gained access to this home as a real or apparent aide of the deputy marshal. His authority, if he had any, ended when the deputy marshal left the premises.
There is too much entering of private homes without lawful process. The day when Chatham could say that all the King's forces might not enter a poor man's hovel is beginning to seem distant:
I anticipate that I may have occasion in a few days to recur to this subject. Meanwhile, the United States Attorney's office will, I am sure, advise the postal authorities to return all the articles they took from defendants' home, without the necessity of a formal order.
On the Merits.
The facts in this case are that an amateur photographer (one of the defendants) who "was interested in that kind of thing", got in touch with a professional artist living in Pittsburgh, who made pornographic sketches. The amateur and professional exchanged their productions, on the basis of two photographs for one sketch, using...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Watson
...ed.), postal inspectors' duties have been thought to permit arrest without a warrant upon probable cause. Compare United States v. Helbock, 76 F.Supp. 985 (D.Or.1948), with United States v. Alexander, 415 F.2d 1352 (CA7 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1014, 90 S.Ct. 1246, 25 L.Ed.2d 427 (1970......
-
Alexander v. United States
...has no authority to make an arrest. It follows he has no authority either to make a search or to seize articles." United States v. Helbock, D. Oregon 1948, 76 F.Supp. 985, 986. Helbock has been cited by two circuits in cases decided after the 1955 act, which circuits, rather than deciding t......
-
United States v. Moderacki
...effects arrests", has led two courts to the conclusion that Postal Inspectors are not authorized to make arrests. United States v. Helbock, 76 F.Supp. 985 (D. Ore., 1948); Ward v. United States, 316 F.2d 113 (C.A. 9, 1963). This Court is inclined to the same conclusion, with the caveat that......
-
Wion v. United States
...incident to the arrest. The appellant suggests that postal inspectors have no authority to make an arrest, i. e., see: United States v. Helbock, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 985; and United States v. Hass, D.C., 109 F.Supp. 443; and, that the search could not, therefore, have been incident to a lawful ......