United States v. Hardy

S.D. New York

United States v. Hardy

160 F. Supp. 47, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2216

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 16, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 F. Supp. 47 (United States v. Hardy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Hardy, 160 F. Supp. 47, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2216 (S.D.N.Y. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS F. MURPHY, District Judge.

On oral argument defendant relied exclusively on the alleged illegal arrest for the suppression of the physical evidence seized and the signed confession. His argument was that the John Doe warrant did not describe the defendant with any reasonable degree of certainty because defendant is in fact 6' 1" tall and the warrant describes him as about 5' 10". It was conceded that the other parts of defendant’s description in the warrant fitted him. However, the motion papers raise other issues, viz., the voluntary character of the confession, whether the search was pursuant to a consent and the reasonableness of the time within which defendant was arraigned.

Since the question of the voluntary character of the confession raises issues of fact no determination of that issue will be made but left to the determination of the trial court. As to the legality of the arrest and the reasonableness of the time of arraignment under Rule 5, 28 U.S.C.A., those issues are decided adversely to defendant and his motion addressed thereto is denied.

This is an order. No settlement is necessary.

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

THOMAS F. MURPHY, District Judge.

On oral argument defendant relied exclusively on the alleged illegal arrest for the suppression of the physical evidence seized and the signed confession. His argument was that the John Doe warrant did not describe the defendant with any reasonable degree of certainty because defendant is in fact 6' 1" tall and the warrant describes him as about 5' 10". It was conceded that the other parts of defendant’s description in the warrant fitted him. However, the motion papers raise other issues, viz., the voluntary character of the confession, whether the search was pursuant to a consent and the reasonableness of the time within which defendant was arraigned.

Since the question of the voluntary character of the confession raises issues of fact no determination of that issue will be made but left to the determination of the trial court. As to the legality of the arrest and the reasonableness of the time of arraignment under Rule 5, 28 U.S.C.A., those issues are decided adversely to defendant and his motion addressed thereto is denied.

This is an order. No settlement is necessary.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 F. Supp. 47, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hardy-nysd-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack