United States v. Prendergast
| Decision Date | 07 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 76-273. |
| Citation | 436 F. Supp. 931 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Thomas R. PRENDERGAST. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
James J. West, Charles F. Scarlata, Asst. U. S. Attys., Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
We have before us defendant, Thomas R. Prendergast's, motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(f) and 12(b). On May 26, 1977, a hearing was held regarding this motion and testimony was taken.
At the time of the events complained of, defendant was engaged in the operation of Conroy's Pharmacy in Coraopolis, Pa. On April 30, 1976, William W. Warner, a compliance investigator for the Drug Enforcement Administration, obtained an inspection warrant signed by a United States magistrate pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-966 (hereafter "the Act").
Pursuant to the authority of this warrant, Agent Warner conducted inspections of defendant's place of business on April 30, May 3 and May 6, 1976. Following the inspections a four count indictment was returned charging violations of the Act, namely failing "to make, keep or furnish" certain records, (21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5)); knowing, intentionally and unlawfully distributing a Schedule IV Controlled Substance (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); and two counts of making false and fraudulent statements of material fact (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
Defendant avers that the utilization of an administrative warrant was improper and that this utilization was an abuse of the statutory scheme authorizing such warrants and a subterfuge to avoid the probable cause burden applicable to criminal search warrants.
Section 880(d) of the Act governs the issuance of administrative inspection warrants. It requires that such warrants be issued by a judge or magistrate and then only on a showing of probable cause. But probable cause is defined by the Act as:
"a valid public interest in the effective enforcement of this subchapter 21 U.S. C.A. §§ 801-886 or regulations thereunder sufficient to justify administrative inspections of the area . . ." 21 U.S.C.A. § 880(d)(1).
There is a valid public interest in insuring compliance with the record keeping requirements of the Act. It would be proper to inspect a particular premises merely because a substantial period of time had passed since the last inspection. United States v. Greenberg, 334 F.Supp. 364, 367 (W.D.Pa.1971). In the instant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Burka
...to 21 U.S.C. § 880(d)(1) merely because a substantial period of time has passed since a previous inspection. See United States v. Prendergast, 436 F.Supp. 931 (W.D.Pa. 1977), affirmed, 585 F.2d 69, 70 (3d Cir. 1978); United States v. Greenberg, 334 F.Supp. 364, 367 (W.D.Pa.1971); United Sta......
-
U.S. v. Schiffman
...of time has passed since the last inspection. United States v. Goldfine, 538 F.2d 815, 818-819 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Prendergast, 436 F.Supp. 931, 932 (W.D.Pa.1977); United States v. Greenberg, 334 F.Supp. 364, 367 (W.D.Pa.1971). Support for this position can be found in Camara ......
-
U.S. v. Prendergast
...to suppress the results of the search conducted pursuant to the administrative warrant and his motion was denied. United States v. Prendergast, 436 F.Supp. 931 (W.D.Pa.1977). He now asserts that this denial was First, we reject the argument that the affidavit in support of the warrant was i......
-
United States v. Osborne
...that a substantial period of time has passed since the most recent inspection of the particular establishment. United States v. Prendergast, D.C.Pa. (1977), 436 F.Supp. 931, 9321, affirmed C.A. 3d (1978), 585 F.2d 69; United States v. Greenberg, D.C.Pa. (1971), 334 F.Supp. 364, 367; see Cam......