United States v. Pete, Cr. No. 199-53.
| Decision Date | 20 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 199-53. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PETE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., and Martin J. McNamara, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Defendant has filed a motion to suppress evidence which she had admittedly embezzled and turned over to another for safe-keeping. The property was seized in the unlawful arrest of the party to whom defendant had given the property. No search of premises was involved. The question is whether defendant may avail herself of the wrongful seizure from another of property identified as fruits of crime.
By the decision of Jeffers v. United States, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 187 F.2d 498, affirmed 1951, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59, it is established that the infringement protected against by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution includes the unlawful seizure of property as well as the illegal search of premises, and that an interest by defendant in the seized property gives rise to the right to invoke the protection of the Amendment. For purposes of the exclusionary rule, the Supreme Court recognized a property right in contraband narcotics, notwithstanding they were subject to forfeiture. This proprietary interest continues when the property is entrusted to another party, Pielow v. United States, 9 Cir., 1925, 8 F.2d 492, and when it is converted to other forms, here checks, bank-books and an automobile title.
This Court, therefore, is constrained to suppress the use as evidence of the embezzled property unlawfully seized from the party to whom they were entrusted.
Defendant has moved to require the Government to furnish counsel for defendant with copies of statements or confessions made by defendant to police. This is not a right created by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., defining discovery procedures. Shores v. United States, 8 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 838, 11 A.L.R.2d 635. Cases in the District of Columbia have permitted discovery of confessions and statements to the police, 4 Barron & Holtzoff § 2032, p. 126, note 8, but in them the Court deemed it necessary in the interest of justice that defendant should have such discovery. See Shores v. United States, supra, 174 F.2d at page 845. In the present case no showing of necessity has been made.
Motion to suppress granted. Motion to require the furnishing to defendant with copies of statements or confessions made to police is denied.
Upon consideration of the Government's motion for rehearing of defendant's motion to suppress evidence, granted by this Court by memorandum opinion dated March 23, 1953, the Court concludes that its order should be vacated and defendant's motion denied.
Defendant's standing to challenge the admission of evidence must rest upon a claim of ownership or possession of the property seized. Washington v. United States, 1953, 91 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 202 F.2d 214, and cases cited. Jeffers v. United States, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 187 F.2d 498, affirmed, 1951, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59, relied upon by the Court in its previous opinion, was based upon a claim of ownership of narcotics declared contraband by statute. Congress...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. State, 6 Div. 130
...absent a search warrant, since Sanders did not have possession of or a proprietary interest in the stolen property. United States v. Pete, D.C., 111 F.Supp. 292; United States v. Friedman, D.C., 166 F.Supp. 786; State v. Pokini, 45 Haw. 295, 367 P.2d Sanders may have had a proprietary inter......
-
State v. Tune
...the motion saying that the defendant had not shown sufficient facts to warrant the exercise of judicial discretion. In U.S. v. Pete, 111 F.Supp. 292 (U.S.D.C., D.C.1953) the defendant moved to require the government to furnish him copies of statements or confessions made by him to the polic......
-
State v. Pokini
...Cir.), Safarik v. United States, 62 F.2d 892, 895 (8th Cir.), hereinafter referred to as the trespasser cases; see also United States v. Pete, 111 F.Supp. 292 (D.D.C.); United States v. Friedman, 166 F.Supp. 786 We are dealing now not with the vindication of society against the hijackers, w......
-
Lindsey v. State, 30450
...appellant had no standing to claim constitutional protection against its seizure by law enforcement officers. United States v. Pete (D.D.C.1953), 111 F.Supp. 292; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures Sec. 17, p. 793. Also, (2) under the circumstances of the case appellant's sister was invested w......