United States v. Roth, No. 67 Cr. 883.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
| Writing for the Court | Barry Ivan Slotnick, New York City, for defendant |
| Citation | 285 F. Supp. 364 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. David ROTH, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. 67 Cr. 883. |
| Decision Date | 26 January 1968 |
285 F. Supp. 364
UNITED STATES of America
v.
David ROTH, Defendant.
No. 67 Cr. 883.
United States District Court S. D. New York.
January 26, 1968.
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for the United States, Richard A. Givens, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.
Barry Ivan Slotnick, New York City, for defendant.
WYATT, District Judge.
This is a motion for defendant Roth for an order "controverting the search warrants issued herein", declaring illegal, etc. the searches and seizures made, returning the property seized, and precluding its use as evidence. Presumably the motion is made under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e).
It appears that movant Roth is "executive director" of a corporation (under what laws incorporated does not appear) called Social Security Foundation of the Philippines New York Branch, Inc. ("Branch"). The offices of Branch have been at 37 West 39th Street in New York County.
A postal inspector, Palmer, was investigating complaints by manufacturers that goods had been obtained from them by Branch on representations that Branch was a charitable enterprise and that the goods would be used for charitable purposes in the Philippines.
On or about October 2, 1967, Palmer interviewed movant Roth in the office used by Roth at the offices of Branch at 37 West 39th Street. According to Roth, Palmer represented himself to be on a routine interview normal as to charitable foundations; he did not tell Roth that he was "conducting a criminal investigation" and Roth was not "cautioned" by him, apparently as to counsel, privilege against self-incrimination and the like.
On October 23, 1967 Palmer swore to two affidavits before Commissioner Bishopp, applying for two search warrants. On the basis of these affidavits, the Commissioner on the same day issued two search warrants. One warrant (Case No. 18466) directed a search of the offices of Branch at 37 West 39th Street for "files pertaining to solicitation and distribution to contributions and proceeds by Branch" which were stated to be "intended for use and have been used as the means of committing criminal offenses", namely, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud). The other warrant (Case No. 18465) directed a search of the first and second floors of The State Warehouse Co., Inc., at 621 West 27th Street in New York County for "merchandise" of Branch "packed in cartons, including medicinal, drug and cosmetic products manufactured by Colgate Palmolive Company, American Home Products Corp., Conal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck, Sharpe & Dohme, Inc. and others" which were stated to be "intended for use and have been used as the means of committing criminal offenses" of the same kind as in the other warrant.
On the same day, October 23, 1967, an indictment was returned charging Roth in 11 counts with mail fraud. The scheme alleged was one to pretend falsely that Branch was a charity which distributed donated merchandise for charitable purposes in the Philippines.
A bench warrant was issued and its return shows that Roth was arrested on October 24. One of the moving affidavits states...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Theodor v. Superior Court
...or area of doubt--is tendered.' (See also United States v. Dunnings, supra, 425 F.2d 836, 840; United States v. Roth (S.D.N.Y.1968) 285 F.Supp. 364, 366; Chin Kay v. United States, supra, 311 F.2d 317, 324 (Murray, J., dissenting); 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, § 673, ......
-
United States v. Thornton, No. 23017.
...v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Averell, 296 F.Supp. 1004, 1016 (E.D.N.Y.1969); United States v. Roth, 285 F.Supp. 364, 366-367 (S.D.N.Y.1968); United States v. Suarez, 380 F.2d 713, 715-716 (2d Cir. 83 United States v. Dunnings, supra note 82, 425 F.2d at 83......
-
United States ex rel. Cubicutti v. Vincent, No. 73 Civ. 5209.
...determination as a routine step in every case. United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2 Cir. 1967); United States v. Roth, 285 F.Supp. 364 (S.D.N.Y.1968); United States v. Halsey, 257 F.Supp. 1002 Indeed, this Circuit has concluded that a hearing was not in order without an initial s......
-
United States v. Bolton, No. 71-2164.
...determination as a routine step in every case." United States v. Halsey, 257 F. Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y.1966); United States v. Roth, 285 F.Supp. 364 (S.D. N.Y.1968); United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1967). And see Mascolo, Impeaching the Credibility of Affidavits, 44 Conn.......
-
Theodor v. Superior Court
...or area of doubt--is tendered.' (See also United States v. Dunnings, supra, 425 F.2d 836, 840; United States v. Roth (S.D.N.Y.1968) 285 F.Supp. 364, 366; Chin Kay v. United States, supra, 311 F.2d 317, 324 (Murray, J., dissenting); 3 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, § 673, ......
-
United States v. Thornton, No. 23017.
...v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Averell, 296 F.Supp. 1004, 1016 (E.D.N.Y.1969); United States v. Roth, 285 F.Supp. 364, 366-367 (S.D.N.Y.1968); United States v. Suarez, 380 F.2d 713, 715-716 (2d Cir. 83 United States v. Dunnings, supra note 82, 425 F.2d at 83......
-
United States ex rel. Cubicutti v. Vincent, No. 73 Civ. 5209.
...determination as a routine step in every case. United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2 Cir. 1967); United States v. Roth, 285 F.Supp. 364 (S.D.N.Y.1968); United States v. Halsey, 257 F.Supp. 1002 Indeed, this Circuit has concluded that a hearing was not in order without an initial s......
-
United States v. Bolton, No. 71-2164.
...determination as a routine step in every case." United States v. Halsey, 257 F. Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y.1966); United States v. Roth, 285 F.Supp. 364 (S.D. N.Y.1968); United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1967). And see Mascolo, Impeaching the Credibility of Affidavits, 44 Conn.......