United States v. One 1929 Pierce Arrow Sedan, 5205.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1934
• Docket Number: No. 5205.,5205.
• Citation: 8 F. Supp. 273
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. ONE 1929 PIERCE ARROW SEDAN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

8 F. Supp. 273

UNITED STATES v. ONE 1929 PIERCE ARROW SEDAN.

No. 5205.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

October 10, 1934.

Francis J. W. Ford, U. S. Atty., and Charles W. Bartlett, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass.

Michael Carchia, of Boston, Mass., for claimant.

McLELLAN, District Judge.

The parties having waived trial by jury, this libel for the forfeiture of an automobile was heard this afternoon upon a written agreed statement of facts, which follows:

"On December 12, 1933, Officers De-Angelo and Henneberry, attached to the Prohibition Unit of the Department of Justice, were, as a result of information received and previous personal observation, watching the dwelling of the claimant at a distance of about sixty feet. The officers saw the claimant placing a carton package in the automobile in question, which was stopped in the driveway. The carton package looked similar to cartons which, in their experience, would contain alcohol, and was similar to packages that they had seen being handled at that address on previous occasions. The claimant backed out of the driveway and the officers followed for about a mile, when they approached and stopped the claimant's car, opened the door and on the floor of the car found a carton containing a five-gallon can of alcohol, with no Internal Revenue stamps affixed thereon, of the presence of which can and the absence of which stamps the said claimant was cognizant. They placed the claimant under arrest for violation of the Internal Revenue Law. The officers were without a warrant of search at the time.

"These facts in substantially this form were submitted by agreement between counsel at the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence and motion to quash the indictment. On May 17, 1934, Judge Letts allowed the motion to suppress the evidence."¹

It was agreed orally that on December 12, 1933, prohibition had ceased and the officers had not then been assigned to the Department of Internal Revenue.

It is settled that in a forfeiture proceeding the fact that the officers were unauthorized does not warrant the denial of a decree for the libelant. The United States may adopt the seizure, though originally it was unauthorized. United States v. One Ford Coupé, 272 U. S. 321, 47 S. Ct. 154, 71 L. Ed. 279, 47 A. L. R. 1025.

If this were true as applied to an indictment, there would be nothing for me to do, as I view the matter, except to follow Judge Letts' decision on the motion to suppress evidence; but his decision on that motion is as consistent with the single...