United States v. Celedonia

95 F. Supp. 228, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2588
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 31, 1951
DocketCrim. No. 13242
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 95 F. Supp. 228 (United States v. Celedonia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Celedonia, 95 F. Supp. 228, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2588 (W.D. Pa. 1951).

Opinion

GOURLEY, District Judge.

This is a criminal action in which an indictment has been returned against the defendants, charging them with violation of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Reference to the sections of the Code are not material to a determination of the question which arises. The matter for the consideration of the Court involves a motion to suppress evidence under Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.

The motion is based on a legal proposition that an affidavit executed by investigators of the Alcoholic Tax Unit, in which it is set forth that as a result of the observations of the premises in question for a number of hours on three different dates, which resulted in a detection of strong odor of fermenting whisky mash emanating from the premises, when near the premises, does not set forth sufficient cause for the issuance of a search warrant.

Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant exists where circumstances before the officer are such as to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in believing that an offense had been committed. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543.

Neither counsel nor the Court has been able to find any decision in the Third Circuit which lends any material aid to the determination of the question. The authorities seem to be unanimous in the conclusion that the sense of smell of strong odor of fermenting whisky mash near the premises on different dates and for a long period of time is sufficient cause for the issuance of a search warrant by the United States Commissioner on affidavit of investigators of the Alcoholic Tax Unit. Garhart v. United States, 10 Cir., 157 F.2d 777; United States v. Phillips, D.C., 34 F.2d 495; United States v. Lotempio, D.C., 58 F.2d 358; Wida v. United States, 8 Cir., 52 F.2d 424; Gracie v. United States, 1 Cir., 15 F.2d 644; Lee Kwong Nom v. United States, 2 Cir., 20 F.2d 470; McBride v. United States, 5 Cir., 284 F. 416.

The motion to suppress evidence is denied and it is directed that the above entitled action be placed on the trial list for the term of court which commences on February 12, 1951.

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

Related

United States v. Harmon
317 F. Supp. 923 (E.D. Tennessee, 1970)
Glenn Dale Castle v. United States
287 F.2d 657 (Fifth Circuit, 1961)
United States v. James Stanley Spears
287 F.2d 7 (Sixth Circuit, 1961)
Add Evans v. United States
242 F.2d 534 (Sixth Circuit, 1957)
People v. Rivera de Jesús
79 P.R. 697 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1956)
Pueblo v. Rivera de Jesús
79 P.R. Dec. 742 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1956)
United States v. Parham
17 F.R.D. 301 (E.D. Michigan, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 F. Supp. 228, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-celedonia-pawd-1951.