Two Pennsylvania district courts have reviewed interrogations by IRS agents at the defendants place of business. Both courts found that the interrogations were not custodial. In United States v. Jaskiewicz, 278 F. Supp. 525 (E.D. Pa. 1968), two agents went to Jaskiewicz's office to question him about his tax returns. They told Jaskiewicz that he had the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate himself, but did not inform him of his right to counsel. In United States v. Fiore, 258 F. Supp. 435 (W.D. Pa. 1966), agents met several times with Fiore and his accountant in connection with an investigation of his tax returns. On some of those occasions, Fiore was advised of his right to remain silent. On others, he was not. Both of these cases differ from the American Investors interrogations in that they lacked the physical intimidation and psychological pressures deliberately created by the IRS agents in the American Investors raid.
Thirty-seven IRS agents invaded the American Investors office on May 13, 1983 in order to execute a search warrant. They seized control of the premises and ordered the employees to sit with their hands on their desks in order to execute that search warrant. The agents closely monitored every movement of the defendants in order to ensure that they did not interfere with the search. In so behaving, the agents were vigorously performing their jobs while staying within the bounds set by the fourth and fifth amendments.
The agents crossed those bounds and infringed the defendants' rights when they used the control and intimidation inherent in the manner they executed the search warrant to facilitate interrogation without giving Miranda warnings. The agents and the Assistant United States Attorney made a deliberate attempt to circumvent Miranda, and this court discourages such attempts.
For the above reasons, this court finds that certain defendants' fifth amendment rights were violated. The statements made by the defendants on May 13, 1983 at the American Investors office will be excluded at trial. An appropriate order will be entered.
AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 1987, after careful consideration and a suppression hearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as to defendants' motions that:
(1) Motion to Compel Production of Grand Jury Transcripts is DENIED;
(2) Motion to Compel Written Statement of Uncharged Misconduct Evidence is DENIED;
(3) Motion for Disclosure of Impeachment and/or Exculpatory and/or otherwise Favorable Evidence is DENIED. See United States v. Starusko, 729 F.2d 256 (3d Cir. 1984) and United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39 (3d Cir. 1983);
(4) Motion for Bill of Particulars is DENIED. See United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49 (3d Cir. 1972);
(5) Motion for Detailed Proffer of Substantial and Independent Evidence of Conspiracy is DENIED. See United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir. 1979);
(6) Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained from Pittsburgh National Bank pursuant to a Grand Jury Subpoena is DENIED. See In Re Swearingen Aviation Corp., 605 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1979) and In Re Seiffert, 446 F. Supp. 1153 (N.D. N.Y. 1978);
(7) Motion to Dismiss Counts Ninety-Five through One Hundred Fifty-six Involving Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is DENIED but without prejudice to being renewed after the government has presented its evidence in support of said Counts. See United States v. Molinares, 700 F.2d 647 (11th Cir. 1983);
(8) Motion to Dismiss Count One and Counts Forty-eight through Ninety-four for failure to state a criminal violation is DENIED;
(9) Motion to Dismiss Counts Twenty-three through Forty-seven and Eighty-seven through Ninety-four is DENIED. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 8 L. Ed. 2d 240, 82 S. Ct. 1038 (1962) and United States v. Torquato, 602 F.2d 564 (3d Cir. 1979);
(10) Motion to Suppress Statements of Defendants John J. Bruno, John W. Mendicino, Charles Krzywicki and Louis J. Pecori taken May 13, 1983 is GRANTED and such statements may not be admitted as evidence or referred to at the trial of the above-captioned case. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). See attached Memorandum.
(11) Motion to Suppress Seized Evidence from the premises of defendant American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc. on May 13, 1983 is DENIED. See United States v. Wheeler, 256 F.2d 745 (3d Cir. 1958) Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387, 99 S. Ct. 421 (1978);
(12). Motion to Invalidate the Search Warrant is DENIED. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984) and Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 103 S. Ct. 2317 (1983);
(13) Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is DENIED;
(14) Motion to Suppress Statements of the defendant Allan Zytnick is DENIED; and
(15) Motion to Compel Productions of Documents is DENIED in PART and GRANTED in PART, and Pittsburgh National Bank shall forthwith produce for inspection and copying by counsel for defendants all documents written and relied on by Pittsburgh National Bank officials and/or employees concerning the practices and policies of Pittsburgh National Bank regarding its filing and/or not filing of Currency Transaction Reports during the period of time from May 17, 1979 up to and including January 1, 1985.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.