United States v. Jordan
| Decision Date | 08 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 14461.,14461. |
| Citation | 79 F. Supp. 411 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. JORDAN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Charles P. Mirarchi, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Gerald A. Gleeson, U. S. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
John Patrick Walsh, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
This is a motion for judgment of acquittal which raises the question whether the defendant's rights against unlawful search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution were violated.
The facts are briefly these: On November 16th, 1947, three police officers of the City of Philadelphia entered the home of Alexander Townsend, located at 1812 N. Bouvier Street, Philadelphia, and proceeded to make a search of the premises without a search and seizure warrant. At the time of the entry, the defendant was holding a jug wrapped in paper, which upon examination was found to contain whiskey. The defendant was taken to the police station whereupon the Sergeant in charge called the office of the Federal Alcohol Tax Unit on the telephone notifying it of the arrest and within a very short time a federal revenue officer arrived at the station house and the defendant and the liquor taken from him, were turned over to him.
At the trial, the whiskey turned over by the state officer, was offered in evidence and received, over the objection of defendant's counsel, on the ground that it was violative of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution giving protection against unlawful search and seizure.
It has been held that the guaranty of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure applies solely to governmental action. It is not invaded by the unlawful acts of individuals in which the government has no part. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L.R. 1159. Likewise it is well settled that the United States may make available to itself all evidence improperly secured by state officers operating solely on their account. 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; Bruce et al. v. United States, 8 Cir., 73 F.2d 972. Lerskov v. United States, 8 Cir., 4 F.2d 540, Elam v. United States, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 887 and Lotto et al. v. United States, 8 Cir., 157 F.2d 623.
Counsel for the defendant has pressed upon us the case of Gambino v. United States, 275 U.S. 310, 48 S.Ct. 137, 72 L.Ed. 293, 52 A.L.R. 1381. However it is apparent from the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stapleton v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
...922 (search 'really made' on behalf of United States); United States v. Cotter (E.D.Va.1948) 80 F.Supp. 590, 591; United States v. Jordan (E.D.Pa.1948) 79 F.Supp. 411, 412.) ...
-
Sutherland v. Kroger Co.
...People, 40 Colo. 142, 90 P. 608; Phillips v. Johns, 12 Tenn.App. 354; People v. Tarantino, 45 Cal.2d 590, 290 P.2d 505; United States v. Jordan, D.C., 79 F.Supp. 411; Walker v. Fenner, 190 Or. 542, 227 P.2d 316. It should be pointed out that not all searches and seizures are prohibited by t......
-
People v. Randazzo
...federal cases, prior to 1960, mentioned the rule without questioning it. (See, e. g., Hall v. U. S., 9 Cir., 41 F.2d 54; United States v. Jordan, D.C., 79 F.Supp. 411.) In 1960 the Supreme Court decided the case of Elkins v. U. S., 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669. The Elkins cas......