United States v. Mack, Crim. A. No. 76-172.
| Decision Date | 27 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. 76-172. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. James L. MACK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Blair Griffith, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Wendell G. Freeland, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Defendant has moved to suppress certain evidence seized from his person. A Pennsylvania state search warrant had been issued for premises described as being occupied by defendant and another person. No attack is made on the probable cause adequacy of the search warrant. The city police officers executed the warrant at the premises beginning at about 10 p. m. The defendant was not present at the residence at the time the search began but the police officers were admitted by the co-occupant described in the warrant. While the officers were still present the defendant entered the apartment. He was warned at the time of the entry by the co-occupant that there were police officers present. He was wearing a dark trench coat over his other clothes. The police officers announced that they were on the premises to conduct a search pursuant to a warrant. They then "patted down" or "frisked" defendant and found a bulge at his waist which disclosed a .38 caliber loaded revolver tucked into the waist band of his trousers. They then informed defendant that he was under arrest and proceeded to search his person thoroughly. In a jacket pocket they found a plastic bag containing a white powder, and a measuring spoon wrapped in a plastic bag. In the leg of a sock they found a plastic bag containing a brown powder. These items on later analysis were proven to be 10.3 grams of 22.5% pure heroin, lactose sugar commonly used to cut heroin, and a spoon used in melting heroin for administration. It is these items that defendant moves to suppress.
At the evidentiary hearing it was disclosed that the search warrant did not authorize a search of the person of the named occupants although the affidavit presented to the magistrate presented sufficient probable cause. The affidavit, sworn to by the officer who made the search of the person of defendant, revealed that defendant had been seen by the reliable informant cutting and packaging heroin. The officer also testified that his background investigation of defendant prior to applying for the warrant established that defendant had a prior record of felony offenses, including narcotics and burglary. The officer also testified that a high percentage of persons arrested for narcotic offenses in recent years are found to be armed, and that the area of the residence to be searched was an area of high incidence of crime. He testified that he conducted the pat-down search for his own protection and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ruiz
...justified an actual frisk or pat-down to determine if he did. See United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45 (2d Cir.1977); United States v. Mack, 421 F.Supp. 561 (W.D.Pa.1976), aff'd, 568 F.2d 771 (3d Cir.1978). It is an a fortiori proposition that an oral inquiry, which is much less intrusive th......
-
Smith v. State, 1989
... ... What the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently said ... Compare, United States v. Mack, 421 F.Supp. 561 (W.D.Pa.1976), aff'd,568 F.2d 771 (3d ... ...
-
State v. Miller
...had been heard to brag about having shot a police officer; and (5) suspect's pants pocket had large bulge.) See also United States v. Mack, 421 F.Supp. 561 (W.D.Pa.1976) (frisk justified where (1) the person searched was occupant of the place searched; (2) warrant was issued to search for e......
-
Aguilar v. State
...(1972). Some courts have allowed an officer to search a suspect's inner clothing where the outer clothing is bulky. United States v. Mack, 421 F.Supp. 561 (W.D.Pa.1976), aff'd, 568 F.2d 771 (3rd Cir 1978). When a suspect is stopped in a motor vehicle, the police may search the entire passen......