United States v. Mathes

S.D. Florida

United States v. Mathes

1 F.2d 935, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1064

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1924

DocketNos. 679-682, 2406

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 F.2d 935 (United States v. Mathes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Mathes, 1 F.2d 935, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1064 (S.D. Fla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

CALL, District Judge.

In these causes it is sought to have the cases certified by the United States commissioner to the District Judge, to have his ruling upon the motions to quash the search warrants reviewed and revised by this court. While Judge Hand, in U. S. v. Casino, 286 F. 976, holds that ihe District Judge has power to do this, apparently, I am not satisfied to follow that decision. Circuit Judge Hough, sitting in the District Court in the ease of U. S. v. Maresca et al., 266 F. 713, had the question of procedure before him, and reached a conclusion contrary to that reached by Judge Hand, and I am more impressed by Judge Hough’s discussion of the question.

The motions for an order requiring the commissioner to certify his action on the motion to quash will therefore be denied in each of these cases. It seems to me that the procedure in matters where the defendant desires the court to decide whether seized property should be returned, or the evidence obtained by unlawful searches or seizures should be suppressed, is pointed out by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Section 17, title 11 (40 U. S. Stats. at Large, p. 230), of the Espionage Aet (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 10496(4a~10496(4v), which is looked to by the defendants to support their contention, has no application to the question raised on this motion. The validity of the search warrants is not considered.

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

CALL, District Judge.

In these causes it is sought to have the cases certified by the United States commissioner to the District Judge, to have his ruling upon the motions to quash the search warrants reviewed and revised by this court. While Judge Hand, in U. S. v. Casino, 286 F. 976, holds that ihe District Judge has power to do this, apparently, I am not satisfied to follow that decision. Circuit Judge Hough, sitting in the District Court in the ease of U. S. v. Maresca et al., 266 F. 713, had the question of procedure before him, and reached a conclusion contrary to that reached by Judge Hand, and I am more impressed by Judge Hough’s discussion of the question.

The motions for an order requiring the commissioner to certify his action on the motion to quash will therefore be denied in each of these cases. It seems to me that the procedure in matters where the defendant desires the court to decide whether seized property should be returned, or the evidence obtained by unlawful searches or seizures should be suppressed, is pointed out by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Section 17, title 11 (40 U. S. Stats. at Large, p. 230), of the Espionage Aet (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 10496(4a~10496(4v), which is looked to by the defendants to support their contention, has no application to the question raised on this motion. The validity of the search warrants is not considered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 F.2d 935, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mathes-flsd-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack