Court Opinion

ID: 9455731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:31:33.75061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:42.765783
License: Public Domain

CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
The majority holds that the Government may introduce into evidence in a criminal prosecution property that could not have been lawfully seized but for the Appellees' exercise of their Fifth Amendment rights. I respectfully dissent.
The evil that Marchetti and Grosso were fashioned to eliminate was the “real and appreciable hazard” that if a person were forced to register under the wagering tax laws in order to avoid criminal penalties for their violation, then he exposed himself to prosecution for other crimes by other state and federal agencies to whom the Internal Revenue Service might supply its registration list.
“Substantial hazards of incrimination as to past or present acts plainly may stem from the requirements to register and to pay the occupational tax. In the first place, satisfaction of those requirements increases the likelihood that any past or present gambling offenses will be discovered and successfully prosecuted. It both centers attention upon the registrant as a gambler, and compels ‘injurious disclosure [s]’ which may provide or assist in the collection of evidence admissible in a prosecution for past or present offenses. These offenses need not include actual gambling; they might involve only the custody or transportation of gambling paraphernalia, or other preparations for future gambling. Further, the acquisition of a federal gambling tax stamp, requiring as it does the declaration of a present intent to commence gambling activities, obliges even a prospective gambler to accuse himself of conspiracy to violate either state gambling prohibitions, or federal laws forbidding the use of interstate facilities for gambling purposes. [Citations omitted]” Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 52-53, 88 S.Ct. 697, 705 (1968).
*1031I believe that if a prosecution for other crimes may not lawfully be based upon a coerced waiver of a person’s Fifth Amendment privilege, Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52, 55, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964), then such a prosecution may not lawfully be founded upon evidence which could not lawfully have been seized but for his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.
The search warrants in this case specified as grounds for probable cause only violations of the federal wagering tax laws. There is no allegation in the warrants or in the affidavits supporting them that the Appellees had violated the Anti-Racketeering Act. Therefore, the evidence could not have been seized, or made a basis for the instant prosecutions, had the Appellees not asserted their Fifth Amendment right not to register and pay the taxes.
The crux of the majority’s opinion is the statement that:
“The fact that defendant may now assert his Fifth Amendment rights and avoid criminal conviction for gambling tax violations does not in our view serve to invalidate this lawful search and seizure.” post, p. 1030.
The issue in this case, however, is not whether this was a lawful search and seizure, or whether the Fifth Amendment invalidates it. The search and seizure was clearly reasonable and lawful under the Fourth Amendment, having been supported by a finding of probable cause of violation of the tax laws. Furthermore, in this Circuit, as well as in the Fourth Circuit, such property may be confiscated and the Government may sue for payment of the taxes. United States v. One 1965 Buick, 397 F.2d 782 (6th Cir. 1968). Accord, Washington v. United States, 402 F.2d 3 (4th Cir. 1968). Contra, United States v. United States Coin & Currency in Amount of $8,674.00, 393 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1968), cert. granted 393 U.S. 949, 89 S.Ct. 375, 21 L.Ed.2d 361, reargument granted, 395 U.S. 918, 89 S.Ct. 1768 (1969). Moreover, the issue in this case is not whether the wagering taxes are civilly enforceable, as those cases hold. It is whether property seized for their violation must be suppressed in a criminal prosecution under another statute. I believe it must. Silbert v. United States, 282 F.Supp. 635, 645-648 (D.Md.1968). Stated somewhat differently, the issue is whether “those who properly assert the constitutional privilege as to these [wagering tax] provisions may * * * be criminally punished for failure to comply with their requirements.” [Emphasis added] The United States Supreme Court thinks not. Marchetti v. United States, 390 U. S. 39, 61, 88 S.Ct. 697, 709 (1968).
I would affirm the District Court’s suppression order.