Evening star., 1950-12-09
Ruling for Lewis
Clouds Gaming
Trial in County
Opinion OutIowine
Seized Evidence
Studied by Bowie
By Robert c. RoIIines

1ue QueSClOn OF WQeLner VIII
liam (Snags) Lewis will be tried
in Prince Georges County on
gambling charges was being con-
sidered today by States Attor-
ney A. Gwynn Bowie in the light
Of a Circuit Court ruling that evi-
dence seized in a Bladensburg
raid last March is inadmissable.
A three-judge tribunal ruled
that the evidence is suppressed as
to Lewis and three others of the
19 defendants arrested in the
raid ordered by United States At
torney George Morris Fay and
carried out by deputy marshals
from the District. The other
three defendants are John Ralph
George P. Scott, lessees
with Lewis of a house at 431o
Fcrty-sixth avenue, and Mrs.
Sadie Stanton, the owner.
AS to the remaining IS defend
ants. who were merely invites"
or whose presence in the house
was lawful only because they were
not tresspassers, the court ruled
the evidence valid.
Indictment Still Stands
The court, made up of Chief
Judge John B. Gray, jr., and As
sociate Judges Charles C. Mar
bury and j. Dudley Digges, re-
fused. however, to quash the
search warrant or order the re-.
turn of the property seized from
Lewis, Mitchell, Scott and Mrs.
Stanton.
The 12-page decision left the
indictment standing. This means
that the decision on a trial is
left up to Mr.. Bowie. 1t was clear
nom tse court ruling, however,
that additional evidence not
seized under the illegal warrant
would have to be produced, if
there was to be any hope of a
Mr.. Bowie had no comment,
pending completion of his study Of
the decision.
Lewis and 13 defendants still
face retrial in the District Of
gambling charges that arose from
the Maryland raid.
Last nights decision held that
the search warrant is void because
it did not state the grounds or
probable cause for it's issuance,
nor did it state the names of the
persons whose affidavits had been
taken in support of it.
Law Affects Misdemeanors.
The decision explained that,
under Maryland law (the Bouse
AcD, evidence obtained by illegal
search or seizure is not admissible
in the trial of misdemeanors. The
offenses charged against Lewis
and the other defendants are mis-
demeanors.
The court went on to explain.
however, that a person who COM
plains of an illegal search or seiz-
ure must lawfully occupy" the
premises.
This means occupation of some
character which is connected with
the property or premises by some
lawful means and does not include
those who are merely invites or
whose presence is only lawful be-
cause they are not trespassers,
the court said. The occupancy
must have some relation to prop
erty or premises searched in order
TO enable such occupants to claim
that their possessions have been
unlaWfully seized and it is not
sufficient that they are merely
there when search is made.
THE matter of whether the
search and seizure as to these
other defendants was incidental to
a lawful arrest raises a mixed
question Of both law and fact and
can only be determined on the ad-
instability of evidence derived
therefrom in the trial of the
cases."
Cannot Quash o. S. Warrant.
Regarding the motion to quash
the warrant and to order the
property returned, the court stated
1t has no authority to quash the
Federal search warrant, nor in our
opinion order the return of the
property seized thereunder." The
court then pointed out that, more
over. the property is in the pos
session of District authorities.
Reviewing the events leading up
to the case. the court said:
1T is contended by the State
that the property seized pursuant
to the search warrant had been
used in violating the Maryland
statutes prohibiting gaming, and
it was contended that the District
OF Columbia laws had been thus
violated too.
Thus far none of the persons
arrested in connection with the
raids have been convicted in the
District Of Columbia courts, al
though two trials have there been
held.
IF the premises were used as
claimed by the State in violation
of Maryland gambling laws, it
would be highly desirable that the
offenders be brought to trial in
this court and if guilty be duly
Welcomes Lawful Evidence.
"The court would welcome any
lawful evidence in any manner OBJ
tained in order that this class of
could be brought to JUS
tice. However, these considerations
justify the court in refus-
ing to afford these petitioners
the constitutional right to be
protected against unreasonable
searches and seizures which are
guaranteed to them by both
the Federal Constitution and the
Bill Of Rights.