United States v. Liebrich, 7084.
Decision Date | 05 January 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 7084.,7084. |
Citation | 55 F.2d 341 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. LIEBRICH. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Andrew B. Dunsmore, of Wellsboro, Pa., for the United States.
Landau & Nogi, of Scranton, Pa., for defendant.
There are before the court two rules for disposition; one, to show cause why the indictment should not be quashed, and the other, to show cause why the search warrant should not be quashed and the evidence obtained thereunder suppressed.
The reason advanced by the defendant in support of the rule to quash the indictment is that the defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting at Scranton for the October term without a preliminary hearing before the commissioner and without notice to the defendant. It is well settled that in the federal court a defendant may be indicted without such a preliminary hearing or notice. United States v. Reilly (D. C.) 30 F.(2d) 866.
The defendant contends that the search warrant should be quashed because fourteen days elapsed between the time the liquor was alleged to have been purchased and the date upon which the search warrant was issued.
As to the time within which a search warrant should issue after a sale of liquor, there can be no fixed rule. The commissioner should take into consideration the alleged sale, the quantity of liquor, the place where sold, and all other circumstances before him in determining whether he believes that intoxicating liquors are still on the premises when the search warrant is placed in the hands of the officer. In United States v. McKay (D. C.) 2 F.(2d) 257, 259, the court refused to quash the search warrant, although twelve days elapsed between the purchase of the liquor and the issuance of the search warrant, and, in passing upon this question, said: In Hawker v. Queck, 1 F.(2d) 77, twenty-one days elapsed between the sale and the issuance of the search warrant, and the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit affirmed the validity of the search warrant.
The defendant also contends that the search warrant in this case was not served in the daytime, as directed by the search warrant, and that therefore the search was illegal. Section 10, title 11, chapter 30, Act of June 15, 1917 (18 USCA § 620), provides as follows: "The judge or commissioner must insert a direction in the warrant that it be served in the daytime, unless the affidavits are positive that the property is on the person or in the place to be searched, in which case he may insert a direction that it be served at any time of the day or night."
The search warrant was served at 7:15 p. m. on August 21, 1931. The sun set on that day at 6:53 p. m. As to whether 7:15 p. m. on August 21, 1931, was daytime or nighttime is the question which must be answered. If it was daytime, then the defendant's contention is wrong. If it was nighttime, then the defendant's contention is right.
In the Bible, Genesis, 1:5, we find "And God called the light day and the darkness he called night." Shakespeare said: "When the searching eye of heaven is hid Behind the globe, and lights the lower world, Then thieves and robbers range abroad unseen, In murthers and in outrage boldly here." The definition of night in Webster's Dictionary is: "The time from dusk to dawn when no light of the sun is visible."
Several of the federal and state courts have decided what part of the twenty-four hours is daytime, and what part nighttime. In United States v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Gosser
...also: Sasser v. United States, 227 F.2d 358, 359, C.A. 5th; Atlanta Enterprises v. Crawford, 22 F.2d 834, 837, N.D.Ga.; United States v. Liebrich, 55 F.2d 341, 343, Accordingly, we find no merit in appellant's contention that the District Judge erred in overruling the motion to suppress. Th......
-
United States v. Joseph, Crim. No. 19673
...States, 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 351, 240 F.2d 37. See also Distefano v. United States, 5 Cir., 1932, 58 F.2d 963 and United States v. Lie, brich, D.C.M.D.Pa.1932, 55 F.2d 341. C. Objections as to Personnel Accompanying the Authorized Officers, and the Manner of Conduct of the The three office......
-
Funches v. State
...The definition of night in Webster's Dictionary is: 'The time from dusk to dawn when no light of the sun is visible.' United States v. Liebrich, D.C., 55 F.2d 341, we Further, from Liebrich, supra: 'It will be observed that through the ages it has been generally recognized that when it is l......
-
State v. Burnside
...of other jurisdictions. E.g., Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(h) (daytime extends between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. local time); United States v. Liebrich, 55 F.2d 341 (D.C.Pa.1932) (holding, before adoption of 41(h), that daytime extends from at least thirty minutes before sunrise to thirty minutes after ......
-
Shakespeare in the Law
...F.Supp. 211 (D.Mass. 1967) ("Shall we now contaminate our fingers with base bribes." Julius Caesar, IV, iii., 24). 20 U.S. v. Liebrich, 55 F.2d 341 (M.D.Pa. 1932); Funches v. State, 53 Ala. App. 330, 299 So.2d 771, 776 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984); Dinkler v. Jenkins, 118 Ca. App. 239, 163 S.E.2d......