Gorland v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Gorland v. United States

197 F.2d 685, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 90, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2674

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 1952

Docket11275

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 197 F.2d 685 (Gorland v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gorland v. United States, 197 F.2d 685, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 90, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2674 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced for gambling activities in violation of D.C. Code 1940, §§ 22-1501, 22-1502, and 22-1504.

He was arrested and certain evidence was seized by police officers in the course of executing a search warrant for the search of certain premises. The search warrant had been issued upon an affidavit which showed adequate probable cause to believe that gambling activities were being conducted on the premises named. Three months after the arrest, and well after indictment had been returned, appellant (filed a motion to quash the search warrant, which was denied, and thereafter at trial his objection to the admission of evidence seized under the search warrant was overruled. 1

There was adequate probable cause for issuance of the search warrant, and the subsequent search, seizure and arrest were legal, but even more, the motion to quash the search warrant did not meet the requirements of Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. Appellant made no claim to ownership or possession of the property seized by police, or to an interest in the premises searched, and has no standing here to contest the seizure. See Harvey v. U. S. (Mann v. United States) D.C.Cir., 1952, 193 F.2d 928.

Affirmed.

1

. Appellant’s counsel on appeal was not counsel at trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced for gambling activities in violation of D.C. Code 1940, §§ 22-1501, 22-1502, and 22-1504.

He was arrested and certain evidence was seized by police officers in the course of executing a search warrant for the search of certain premises. The search warrant had been issued upon an affidavit which showed adequate probable cause to believe that gambling activities were being conducted on the premises named. Three months after the arrest, and well after indictment had been returned, appellant (filed a motion to quash the search warrant, which was denied, and thereafter at trial his objection to the admission of evidence seized under the search warrant was overruled. 1

There was adequate probable cause for issuance of the search warrant, and the subsequent search, seizure and arrest were legal, but even more, the motion to quash the search warrant did not meet the requirements of Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. Appellant made no claim to ownership or possession of the property seized by police, or to an interest in the premises searched, and has no standing here to contest the seizure. See Harvey v. U. S. (Mann v. United States) D.C.Cir., 1952, 193 F.2d 928.

Affirmed.

1

. Appellant’s counsel on appeal was not counsel at trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F.2d 685, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 90, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorland-v-united-states-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack