United States v. Marra

W.D. New York

United States v. Marra

40 F.2d 271, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2017

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. New York

DecidedApril 23, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 40 F.2d 271 (United States v. Marra) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.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. Marra, 40 F.2d 271, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2017 (W.D.N.Y. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

ADLER, District Judge.

Under the facts in this case, I find that there was no invitation given by the defendant Sam Marra to the prohibition officers to search the premises. The statement of the officers to the defendant, on presenting themselves at the door, that they were prohibition officers and were going to inspect the premises, and the reply of the defendant, “All right,” might be said to he acquiescence, but under the circumstances did not amount to an invitation to enter and search. In re Lobosco (D. C.) 11 F.(2d) 892; United States v. Kozan (D. C.) 37 F.(2d) 415, at page 418.

In this ease, under the facts as they were developed at the hearing before the commissioner, the prohibition officers could probably readily have obtained a search warrant for these premises. This is what they should have done instead of searching without a warrant. United States v. Di Corvo (D. C.) 37 F.(2d) 124. Also see the recent opinion of Judge Fake in United States v. Samuel Rabstein (D. C.) 41 F.(2d) 227.

Motion to suppress evidence obtained on the search is granted.

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

ADLER, District Judge.

Under the facts in this case, I find that there was no invitation given by the defendant Sam Marra to the prohibition officers to search the premises. The statement of the officers to the defendant, on presenting themselves at the door, that they were prohibition officers and were going to inspect the premises, and the reply of the defendant, “All right,” might be said to he acquiescence, but under the circumstances did not amount to an invitation to enter and search. In re Lobosco (D. C.) 11 F.(2d) 892; United States v. Kozan (D. C.) 37 F.(2d) 415, at page 418.

In this ease, under the facts as they were developed at the hearing before the commissioner, the prohibition officers could probably readily have obtained a search warrant for these premises. This is what they should have done instead of searching without a warrant. United States v. Di Corvo (D. C.) 37 F.(2d) 124. Also see the recent opinion of Judge Fake in United States v. Samuel Rabstein (D. C.) 41 F.(2d) 227.

Motion to suppress evidence obtained on the search is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 F.2d 271, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marra-nywd-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack