Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/392/320/27845/
Timestamp: 2020-08-07 17:18:35
Document Index: 224255140

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7212', '§ 2113', '§ 371', '§ 6851', '§ 6331', '§ 591', '§ 7212', '§ 6331', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 7212', '§ 591']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Sylvan Scolnick, Sidney Brooks, Kenneth Paull, A/k/a "harold Fleishman", Allen Rosenberg, Sidney Brooks, Appellant, 392 F.2d 320 (3d Cir. 1968) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Third Circuit › 1968 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Sylvan Scolnick, Sidney Brooks, Kenneth Paull, A/k/a "harold...
United States of America, Appellee, v. Sylvan Scolnick, Sidney Brooks, Kenneth Paull, A/k/a "harold Fleishman", Allen Rosenberg, Sidney Brooks, Appellant, 392 F.2d 320 (3d Cir. 1968)
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 392 F.2d 320 (3d Cir. 1968) Argued October 16, 1967
Rehearing Denied March 11, 1968
Robert St. Leger Goggin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Drew J. T. O'Keefe, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
The appellant ("defendant") appeals from his conviction by a jury for rescuing a safe deposit box seized by the Internal Revenue Service ("Service") in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(b); larceny from a federally insured bank contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b); and conspiracy to commit the aforementioned acts (18 U.S.C. § 371). Three other individuals were indicted with the defendant, but only the defendant stood trial.
The police ascertained that the safe deposit box to which the seized key belonged had been rented to one identifying himself as Howard Davis. The Davis rental application gave as the applicant's address what was later determined to be the residence address of defendant's brother. A warrant to search the safe deposit box was then sought by the Philadelphia Police. An affidavit dated April 13, 1965, purporting to fulfill the requirement of showing "probable cause," accompanied the petition for the warrant. It is not necessary at this point to delineate the petition's contents except to note that they indicated that the police reasonably believed that defendant might have placed the stolen jewelry in the box.
Not finding the stolen jewelry, the police closed the safe deposit box without removing any of its contents. However, on the same day they notified the Service of the existence of the $100,000 cash in the box. Later that day the Service, through its agents, caused an assessment in the sum of $100,000 to be made against defendant. Thereafter on the same day a Notice of Termination of Tax Year as well as a demand for $100,000 in unpaid and due taxes (26 U.S.C. § 6851(a)) were served on defendant at the Philadelphia Detention Center. Defendant accepted the notice and demand and informed the agents that he would contact his attorney. Still later the same day the Service caused a Notice of Levy, Notice of Federal Tax Lien and Notice of Seizure pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6331 (a) to be served on the bank in which the box was located. A seal was placed upon the box warning anyone attempting to gain admission thereto that it was seized for federal income tax purposes. Subsequent to such seizure, the Philadelphia Police turned over to the Service the key to the box which it had taken at the time of defendant's arrest.
The decision in Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S. Ct. 1437, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1669 (1960), interred the "silver platter" doctrine. Thus, evidence used in a federal criminal trial, even though obtained originally by state authorities, must be judged by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.1 The admissibility of evidence obtained by a search by state officers and thereafter sought to be used in a federal trial is to be judged as though the search had been made by federal officers. If the evidence obtained by the state officers would have been inadmissible in a federal trial had it been obtained by federal officers because of a violation of the Fourth Amendment, it is no less objectionable because it was obtained by state officers. Elkins, supra; and see Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914).
We turn to the affidavit which accompanied the request for the warrant. In evaluating it, for present purposes, we realize that its content must be tested and interpreted in a common sense and realistic fashion. Being drafted normally by non-lawyers in the haste of a criminal investigation, such affidavits need not contain the elaborate specificity once required under common law pleading. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1965). The "probable cause" required for the issuance of a search warrant, as the very term implies, involves probabilities. Probable cause exists where "the facts and circumstances within [the officers] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that" a search should be conducted. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S. Ct. 280, 288, 69 L. Ed. 543 (1925).
With these standards in mind we examine the present affidavit. It was executed by Philadelphia Detective Snyder ("affiant") one of the officers who arrested defendant. It recited that an informant, who was identified in the affidavit, stated to him under oath that he and defendant burglarized an apartment and took about $16,000 worth of jewelry; that the informant further stated that defendant retained all of the jewelry. By independent investigation the Police determined that jewelry was stolen from the identified apartment on the date given by the informant. The affidavit recited that the informant supplied the Philadelphia Police Department with reliable information in the month previous to the month when the affidavit was executed. The affidavit further recited that defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued on the basis of his participation in the burglary by affiant and another officer and that they took from him a key for a safe deposit box. Affiant further recited that during his ten years as a detective he has known burglars to use such boxes to store stolen jewelry while waiting to dispose of it. He then stated as follows:
"It is my belief that because of these facts and information, and my experience as a Police Detective, that all or part of the stolen jewelry is in Brooks' home or a safe deposit box."
Defendant's second argument, as we understand it, is that even if we should find that the affidavit evidenced probable cause, the search warrant was nevertheless illegal because it was issued in violation of Pennsylvania statutory law. (Act of September 20, 1961, P.L. 1532 No. 651, sec. 1, 19 P.S. § 591).2
"For these reasons we hold that evidence obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant's immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible over the defendant's timely objection in a federal criminal trial. In determining whether there has been an unreasonable search and seizure by state officers, a federal court must make an independent inquiry, whether or not there has been such an inquiry by a state court, and irrespective of how any such inquiry may have turned out. The test is one of federal law, neither enlarged by what one state court may have countenanced, nor diminished by what another may have colorably suppressed." 364 U.S. at 223-224, 80 S. Ct. at 1447. (emphasis supplied).
"Under the rule the Court today announces, the federal trial court, whenever state-seized evidence is challenged, must decide the wholly hypothetical question whether that evidence was `obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant's immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.' Irrelevant are violations of state law, or hypothetical violations of federal statutes, had the search been `conducted by federal officers.'" (emphasis supplied). 364 U.S. at 243-244, 80 S. Ct. at 1459.
The rule of the majority in Elkins was applied in Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 80 S. Ct. 1431, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1688 (1960) and has been quoted with apparent approval by a unanimous court in Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 366, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1964).
Given the violation of Pennsylvania law here, the federal court was required to make an independent determination as to whether the search conducted by the state officers would have violated the Fourth Amendment had it been conducted by federal officers. The federal constitutional requirement is that the warrant must have been issued on "probable cause."
The statute in question, 26 U.S.C. § 7212(b), makes it a crime to forcibly rescue "* * * any property after it shall have been seized under this title * * *." The essential elements required by the statute to constitute the offense are seizure and rescue. One way for the Government to establish a lawful seizure is to show that the property was seized by a person authorized to do so by virtue of his office. See Cooper v. United States, 299 F. 483 (3rd Cir. 1924). The right of revenue officers of the Internal Revenue Service to make such a seizure without a warrant is not challenged. See 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a). The testimony of such officers here established that the seizure was made by them. Additionally, the jury was properly instructed regarding the Government's burden of proof.
The defendant's other contentions identified in the second preceding paragraph in effect attack the validity of the lien obtained by the Service. The necessary premise for defendant's assertions is that they are relevant factors in a trial where a defendant is charged with the criminal offense of rescuing property seized by the Service under the circumstances herein stated. We think the assumption is unwarranted. Such issues are relevant in civil proceedings attacking the Government's seizure. They are not relevant here. To permit such issues to be raised in connection with a prosecution under these statutes would be to encourage violent self-help where civil remedies are admittedly available. Compare United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S. Ct. 677, 91 L. Ed. 884 (1946). It is of passing interest that this defendant was aware of his civil remedies. Indeed he was successful in his application to obtain an injunction prohibiting the Service from opening the safe deposit box. His own actions apparently rendered that action moot. We thus find no error in refusing to instruct on such matters.
Before a defendant is entitled to the delivery of a statement under the so-called Jenks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, the Government witness must have testified and the statement must relate to the subject mattter of the testimony. This is true even though the statements may relate to the subject matter of the indictment. See United States v. Butenko, 384 F.2d 554 (3rd Cir., Oct. 6, 1967). The ruling as to whether the requested statement relates to the testimony given by the witness is left to the determination of the trial judge after an "* * * inspection of the court in camera." 18 U.S.C. § 3500(c). This was the exact and proper procedure followed by the district court here.5 Acceptance of defendant's argument would nullify the procedure adopted in the Jenks Act to meet conflicting policy factors.
Another ground of error asserted by defendant relates to the alleged failure of the Government to establish the requisite element of force necessary to "forcibly" rescue a safe deposit box. A similar failure is claimed with respect to a showing of an intent to "steal or purloin."
Forcible rescue, as that term is used in 26 U.S.C. § 7212(b), is not, in our opinion, limited to proof of force exerted against persons. Rather, we think the statute embraces the force here proved, viz., the breaking of the bank window, the removal of the Service's seal on the box and the removal of the safe deposit box and its contents from the bank.
On the "steal or purloin" issue, the defendant argues that since he owned the contents of the safe deposit box, he could not have had the requisite intent to steal or purloin his own property. In United States v. Sullivan, 333 F.2d 100, 116 (3rd Cir. 1964), this court said: "When validly invoked, [a levy] effects a seizure of the delinquent's property tantamount to a transferral of ownership." Thus, the Government as well as defendant had an interest in the property taken from the bank.
The decisions in Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S. Ct. 1437, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1669 (1960) and Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 80 S. Ct. 1431, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1688 (1960) could readily form the basis of elaborate discussion. I think it is enough simply to record my view that they are not decisive of the present question but leave it open for decision whether as a matter of policy the evidence should be excluded. I read them as dealing with state determinations whether the searches there involved were constitutionally invalid and not as decisive of the question of policy which we have before us.
I see no reason why the policy of the state that there should be a special procedure for the protection of the privacy of safe deposit boxes should not be respected, especially by state officers, sworn to uphold the state's laws. To allow them to violate the statute and produce to a federal prosecutor the information thus obtained for use in a federal trial is to lend federal encouragement to the violation by state officers of the laws which control their conduct. It constitutes the unspoken expression by federal agencies of approval of the illegal acts of state officers, and its only foundation can be an acceptance of the view that the end justifies the means. It offends fundamentally the position expressed by Mr. Justice Brandeis in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 471, 483, 485, 48 S. Ct. 564, 72 L. Ed. 944 (1928) which so powerfully describes the evil inherent in the judicial use of the fruits of official illegality.3 I would therefore hold that the evidence obtained by the search and seizure of the contents of the safe deposit box was erroneously admitted.
"Except as herein provided, during any criminal investigation or criminal proceeding when a petition is filed with any court for an order to open a safe deposit box, whether such petition is filed by a police official or any other person, the court shall not issue any such order until at least forty-eight hours after notice of the filing of such petition and a certified copy of said petition has been served upon the holder or holders of the safe deposit box. The petition shall set forth the date and time and place when the holder or holders of said safe deposit box may have an opportunity to appear in court for the purpose of answering the petition to show cause why the safe deposit box should not be opened. If the person filing such petition shall, by affidavit, advise the court that the holder or holders of said safe deposit box can not be located, then the court may issue such order for the opening of said safe deposit box without the notice required by this act. The court shall have the power to order the said safe deposit box sealed pending the disposition of the petition and to enjoin the holder or holders of said safe deposit box from opening or permitting the opening of the box except as directed by the court. This act is hereby declared to be procedural and it is not intended to affect the substantive rights of holders of safe deposit boxes."
1961 Session of the Pennsylvania General Assembly: Legislative Journal — Senate p. 1964. (June 5, 1961) (Remarks of Senator Donolow); Legislative Journal — House p. 3686-87 (August 23, 1961) (Remarks of Representative Eilberg)
Certainly had federal agents sought the search warrant here involved they would not have been required to comply with the state statute in question. Indeed, its forty-eight hour notice requirement is inconsistent with the provision of Fed. Rules of Crim. Procedure 41(c) that the officer to whom it is directed shall make the search "forthwith."
P.L. 1532, Act No. 651, 19 Purdon's Pa. Stat. Annot. § 591
Statement of Senator Donolow, Legislative Journal — Senate 1964, 1965 (1961); Statement of Rep. Eilberg, Legislative Journal — House 3687 (1961)
"When the Government, having full knowledge, sought, through the Department of Justice to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers' crimes. * * * And if this Court would permit the Government, by means of its officers' crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present all the elements of a ratification. If so, the Government itself would become a lawbreaker
"In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. * * * To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. * * *"