Evening star., 1960-05-24
Court UphoIds DC.
On illegal Seizures
Pines Ruling
Called Victory
For Prosecutor
BY CARL IRVING
Star Stad Writer

Defendants can be prosecuted
in the District with evidence
illegally seized by State police
outside the city and after ar
rests that would have been
banned by District standards.
Chief District Court Judge
David A. Pine ruled today.
The decision undoubtedly is
an important victory for the
prosecutors Office here. Many
persons accused of crime in
the District are arrested in
Maryland and Virginia.
If the Stricter Federal stand
ards for arrest and search and
seizure do not apply there,
even though the cases involve
persons to be prosecuted in the
District, more suspects can be
brought to trial here. In addi-
ton, Washington prosecutors
can more easily obtain evi-
dence against those arrested.
Two Rulings at Issue
The decision challenges two
rulings in 1858 and 1859 by the
United States Court of Appeals
here. These decisions outlawed
evidence obtained outside the
city for District Court cases
after what would have been an
illegal arrest by District or
Federal standards. Judge Pine
said a Supreme Court decision
had been misinterpreted by the
appeals court.
The case decided by Judge
Pine involved two men who
were halted early on January
16 by Maryland State police
on Sixteenth street, one block
north of the District line.
Under Maryland law, a per-
son is not arrested when he is
merely questioned by police Of
ficers. However, the same ac-
ton by an officer in the Dis
trict has been labeled arrest"
by court decisions.
The police found and seized
a refrigerator and washing ma
chine valued at 1862, which
had been in the back of the
mems truck. The men then
were arrested. When it was
learned the items allegedly
were taken out of the District,
the defendants were turned
over to the Washington police.
The accused, James B. Black
man. 33. of the 1900 block OF
Jackson street NE, and Cor
nell r. jackson. 80, of the 3400
block of South Tampa drive,
Arlington, were charged with
| houSebreaking and larceny,
Police said the two articles
had been taken from a home
in the 1700 block of Verbena
drive NV.
Their attorneys argued that
the evidence. the refrigerator
and the washing machine, had
to be suppressed because the
police had no probable cause
to suspect the defendants of
any crime and had no warrant
when they stopped them.
Under District law, Judge
Pine wrote, "I would have seri-
GUS doubt that this arrest could
be legally sustained. However,
this arrest occurred in Mary
land and the Supreme
Court has held, under such
circumstances, that the law
fulneSS Of the arrest without
warrant is to be determined
by reference to State law"
Explains Law
Moreover, said the judge, the
Supreme Court said, in 1914,
that the Fourth Amendment of
the Constitution, which re-
qulreS probable cause for ar
rest, does not protect against
illegal acts by State officers.
Evidence illegally obtained by
such officers without the aid of
Federal agents can be used by
the Federal Government in
prosecution of a Federal Of
fenSe, the judge said.
Judge Pine then took the
rare step in concluding that the
appellate decisions contrary to
his views were wrong. He said
he had to follow the holdings
of the Supreme Court.
The appeals court here ruled
for the second time last Octo-
ber that evidence seized in an
arrest that would be illegal
here must be suppressed. The
case involved a man who was
arrested and searched by New
York police.
Judge Pine pointed out that
his view was reinforced by de-
clsionS from seven other circuit
courts of appeal, which took
the some yaocifioyo