United States v. Rellie, Criminal No. 38316.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | Criminal No. 38316. |
| Citation | 39 F. Supp. 21 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. RELLIE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Harold M. Kennedy, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (J. Wolfe Chassen, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.
Louis J. Castellano, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant.
Two motions are before the Court, one for an order to quash the search warrant described in the petition, and the other for an order to suppress the evidence obtained by that search.
The indictment charges the defendant with possession of sixty-five (65) grains of smoking opium in violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act, Title 26, U.S.C.A. Int. Rev. Code, § 2550 (a), and § 2553 (a), with intent to sell, dispense and distribute, in packages which did not have the Internal Revenue tax paid stamps affixed. The second count of the indictment charges the defendant with unlawfully receiving and concealing a quantity of narcotic drugs, imported and brought into the United States contrary to Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 173; against the peace and dignity of the United States, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.
The affidavit before the United States Commissioner upon which he issued the warrant contains the following allegation:
The defendant contends that the search and seizure was made in violation of his Constitutional rights and in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution.
An arrest made without a search warrant where the evidence indicates that the agent smelled the opium by placing his face to the door was held to be illegal and the opium improperly received in evidence. United States v. Lee, 2 Cir., 83 F.2d 195. In this case, there is an apparent distinction made between an arrest with a search warrant and one without. Under the ruling in the Lee case, as it is interpreted by this Court, it would be proper for the Commissioner to issue a search warrant based upon the information contained in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mattlock, 72-1449.
...(1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 943, 80 S.Ct. 808, 4 L.Ed.2d 771 (issue was standing to pursue motion to suppress); United States v. Rellie, 39 F.Supp. 21 (E.D.N.Y.1941) (challenged legality of a warrant). The government also challenges the court's statement that the authority of the consent......
-
Cheng Wai v. United States, 193.
...decide. Cf. Pong Ying v. United States, 3 Cir., 66 F.2d 67; United States v. Sam Chin, D.C.Md., 24 24 F.Supp. 14, 19; United States v. Rellie, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 39 F.Supp. 21; and see United States v. Kaplan, 2 Cir., 89 F.2d 869, There remains for consideration the contention that appellant was......
-
United States v. Pond and Fanelli
...officer adds a new dimension to the proceedings. See United States v. Kaplan, 89 F.2d 869, 871 (2d Cir. 1937); United States v. Rellie, 39 F.Supp. 21, 22 (E.D.N.Y.1941). The defendants' reliance on United States v. Condrick, 73 Cr. 226 (S.D.N.Y., filed Nov. 9, 1973) (Tenney, J.) is misplace......
-
Turner v. Andersen, Misc. No. 2088.
...grounds for suspicion that there was a still in the said premises are adequately stated and probable cause was shown. See: United States v. Rellie, D.C., 39 F.Supp. 21; Garhart v. U. S., 10 Cir., 157 F.2d 777 at page 779; United States v. Miller, D.C., 36 F.Supp. The motion to quash the sea......