is shown to have given his consent should be suppressed as being the product of an illegal search and seizure.
An accused cannot assert that the illegality of a search made with his consent though given in response to a threat to procure search warrant. Gatterdam v. United States, 6 Cir., 5 F.2d 673.
The law is clear and unequivocal in support of the principle that evidence obtained as the result of a search to which the interested party is shown to have given his consent is not to be suppressed as being the product of an illegal search and seizure. Shores v. United States, 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 838, 11 A.L.R.2d 635; Grice v. United States, 4 Cir., 146 F.2d 849; In re White, D.C., 98 F.Supp. 895; A. Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. v. United States, 3 Cir., 3 F.2d 786.
In the search of a dwelling made by consent, no search warrant is necessary. Schutte v. United States, 6 Cir., 21 F.2d 830.
The petitioner's arrest subsequent to the indictment irrefutably satisfies the Court that probable cause for said arrest existed. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S. Ct. 1; Spector v. United States, 9 Cir., 193 F.2d 1002.
In view of the foregoing, the Government would not be required to return the evidence secured on August 23, 1951. Such contraband would be admissible to establish the motive, intent, and system of the accused. United States v. Nettl, 3 Cir., 121 F.2d 927.
The Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
Findings of Fact
1. On August 23, 1951, Charles S. Sabo, Jr., foreman in the Parcel Post Delivery Section of the Pittsburgh Post Office, in investigating matters concerning missing mail, saw the petitioner looking into the back of a mail truck near 704 W. North Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Mr. Sabo called over the petitioner, asked him about certain books and asked him to go with him to the Post Office to see Inspector Evans.
2. In the Post Office Inspector Evans questioned petitioner concerning fictitious orders for books sent to various publishers under various names. The petitioner signed a statement concerning his activities and fraudulent book orders.
3. The petitioner, in the company of Mr. Sabo and another employee of the Post Office, drove to his residence where the petitioner took out a key from his pocket, unlocked a padlocked door to his room where they all entered and where he helped the post office employees to gather the books, wrap, pack and carry them to the truck.
4. The petitioner consented and voluntarily turned over the books to the post office agents.
5. At no time in the steps taken did the post office agents use or show any force, make any threat or promise any immunity or reward.
6. The petitioner was not in unlawful custody or under arrest.
7. The petitioner is 81 years old, experienced in matters of arrest and in his lifetime, approximately half of which was spent in jails, had many brushes with the law.
8. The petitioner abandoned that part of his motion relating to the return of the property seized.
Conclusions of Law
1. Evidence obtained as the result of a search to which the defendant is shown to have given his consent is not to be suppressed as being the product of an illegal search and seizure.
2. Search by consent requires no warrant.
3. There was no unlawful arrest or custody of the petitioner.
4. There was no unlawful search or seizure but the search that was made was consented to and the property obtained was voluntarily surrendered by the petitioner.
5. Petition for the return of seized property and the suppression of evidence is refused.
An appropriate Order is entered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.