to seize the whiskey in defendant's garage without a warrant, because it was plainly visible. We believe that the government misreads the record. As earlier mentioned, defendant's garage door, of solid wood and without windows, was locked when Detective Hoopes arrived. There was no side door, but a rear door which was obstructed because it was "piled up from another tenant's house." (n.t. 49).
Moreover, it cannot be asserted successfully that the search was incidental to an arrest, since the uninterrupted chain of circumstances beginning with entry into the defendant's house and later the garage, were under the authority of the warrants. "Without the search warrant it appears that entry to the house would not have been made." United States ex rel. Campbell v. Rundle, 327 F.2d 153, 163 (3 Cir. 1964).
Finally, the government seeks to salvage the oral and written statements given by the defendant to the F.B.I., because all of the essential warnings were given to the defendant. While the defendant received all of the appropriate warnings before giving his statements, it is manifest that these statements were inextricably interwoven with the entry and arrest of the defendant pursuant to the invalid warrants. It is unpersuasive to assert that the "friendly cooperation" manifested by Mr. Ricci in the midst of a squad of law enforcement officers, possessed with seemingly valid search warrants, was the product of a free will, unaffected by the unlawful entry.
Accordingly, the oral and written statements made by Marvin Ricci at the time of the unlawful entry and subsequent interrogation must be suppressed and excluded from the evidence as the "fruits of the agents' unlawful action * * *." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963).
We reserve decision on the defendant's rather brazen claim for the return of the seized whiskey, since there is no evidence to show that he had either title or right of possession; to the contrary, it appears to be undisputed that the whiskey was stolen in Wilmington, Delaware. We do not conceive it to be the function of this Court or this proceeding to restore stolen goods other than to those rightfully thereunto entitled.
Now, this 19 day of May, 1970, it is ordered that:
1. the defendant's motion to suppress is granted;
2. all articles seized and all oral and written statements shall be excluded from evidence upon defendant's trial;
3. the United States is directed forthwith to endeavor to ascertain the owner or owners of the seized whiskey and to submit supporting documents to the Court to enable the Court to designate all claimants and to order a hearing to determine any disputed issues of ownership and/or right of possession.