United States v. Escott

D. Massachusetts

United States v. Escott

205 F. Supp. 196, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3822

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedMay 22, 1962

DocketCr. No. 62-112-C

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 F. Supp. 196 (United States v. Escott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Escott, 205 F. Supp. 196, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3822 (D. Mass. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

CAFFREY, District Judge.

Defendant has been charged in a two-count information with violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7203. Defendant filed a motion for return of property and to suppress evidence. At the oral argument of the motion, defendant through his counsel waived four of the five grounds set out in the motion and indicated that his reliance was placed on Ground 3 thereof: “The warrant was illegally and unreasonably executed.” The defendant and two Government agents took the stand and testified with regard to the time of the execution of the search warrant by the Deputy United States Marshal and the Special Agent of the Intelligence Division, United States Treasury Department, who cooperated with the Marshal in the search.

While there was a conflict of testimony as to the time the Government agents entered defendant’s premises, I find that they entered defendant’s premises at 6:00 P.M., at which time they placed defendant under arrest and proceeded to execute the search warrant. I further find that the search continued from 6:00 P.M. to about 7:30 P.M. It was stipulated that on April 5, 1962, the date on which the search took place, sunset occurred at 6:14 P.M.

I rule that this search, which was begun before sunset, pursuant to a properly executed search warrant, was neither unreasonable nor illegal. See United States v. Joseph, D.C., 174 F. Supp. 539, aff’d 278 F.2d 504 (3 Cir. 1960).

The motion for return of property and to suppress evidence is denied.

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

CAFFREY, District Judge.

Defendant has been charged in a two-count information with violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 7203. Defendant filed a motion for return of property and to suppress evidence. At the oral argument of the motion, defendant through his counsel waived four of the five grounds set out in the motion and indicated that his reliance was placed on Ground 3 thereof: “The warrant was illegally and unreasonably executed.” The defendant and two Government agents took the stand and testified with regard to the time of the execution of the search warrant by the Deputy United States Marshal and the Special Agent of the Intelligence Division, United States Treasury Department, who cooperated with the Marshal in the search.

While there was a conflict of testimony as to the time the Government agents entered defendant’s premises, I find that they entered defendant’s premises at 6:00 P.M., at which time they placed defendant under arrest and proceeded to execute the search warrant. I further find that the search continued from 6:00 P.M. to about 7:30 P.M. It was stipulated that on April 5, 1962, the date on which the search took place, sunset occurred at 6:14 P.M.

I rule that this search, which was begun before sunset, pursuant to a properly executed search warrant, was neither unreasonable nor illegal. See United States v. Joseph, D.C., 174 F. Supp. 539, aff’d 278 F.2d 504 (3 Cir. 1960).

The motion for return of property and to suppress evidence is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 F. Supp. 196, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-escott-mad-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack