Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

United States v. Grosso

225 F. Supp. 161 (W.D. Pa. 1964)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
United States v. Grosso

4 Citing cases

  1. Street v. Surdyka

    492 F.2d 368 (4th Cir. 1974)   Cited 261 times
    Holding that a warrantless arrest may be made in a public place even if the crime for which the arrest was made was a misdemeanor committed outside an officer's presence

    Consequently, federal customs officers may now make warrantless arrests for narcotics misdemeanors on probable cause. See also United States v. Grosso, 225 F. Supp. 161, 168-170 (W.D.Pa. 1964) (Pennsylvania statute authorizing warrantless arrests for misdemeanor offenses involving "gaming devices" is constitutional). This conclusion is not undermined by occasional references to state law in cases challenging the validity of state arrests.

  2. United States v. Myers

    398 F.2d 896 (3d Cir. 1968)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that where a warrant authorized only a daytime search that "on the issue of reasonableness of searching an occupied house at 2 a.m. the searcher's case is certainly no better than it would have been if no warrant had been issued, probably worse."

    We do not reach the point urged by the appellant that unrecorded oral statements to the magistrate may not be the basis for a finding of probable cause to issue a warrant. United States v. Sterling, 3d Cir. 1966, 369 F.2d 799, 802 n. 2; Miller v. Sigler, 8th Cir. 1965, 353 F.2d 424; United States v. Grosso, W.D.Pa. 1964, 225 F. Supp. 161; Commonwealth v. Crawley, 1966, 209 Pa. Super. 70, 223 A.2d 885. The time of a police search of an occupied family home may be a significant factor in determining whether, in a Fourth Amendment sense, the search is "unreasonable."

  3. United States v. Grosso

    358 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1966)   Cited 71 times
    In Grosso, for instance, we affirmed a guilty verdict where the court simply instructed a deadlocked jury to "keep on working."

    The exhibits in question were seized in searches conducted at various places at different times. Prior to trial these exhibits were made the subject of a motion to suppress evidence filed by the appellant and three other defendants under rule 41(e) of Fed.Rules Cr.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A. This motion was denied, United States v. Grosso, D.C., 225 F. Supp. 161. A separate trial was granted the appellant on his motion for a severance filed under rule 14 of Fed.Rules Cr.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A. The arguments of the defendant relating to the admissibility of the exhibits will be separately discussed.

  4. United States v. Birrell

    242 F. Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)   Cited 38 times
    Holding sworn information presented to a commissioner other than that contained in affidavits could not be considered where rule of criminal procedure provided that a warrant shall issue only on affidavit sworn to before a judge or commissioner as the word affidavit referred to a sworn statement in writing made especially under oath

    "We do not believe, however, that dismissal of the indictments would be an appropriate sanction * *. The law calls only for exclusion, and we do not0 think that the public interest would be served by requiring more than this in the exercise of our supervisory power over the administration of criminal justice." See also United States v. Grosso, 225 F. Supp. 161, 175 (W.D.Pa. 1964) ("the use of such illegally obtained evidence is irrelevant where the issue facing the Court is whether * * * an indictment should be dismissed."); United States v. Block, 202 F. Supp. 705, 707 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) ("The motion to suppress the evidence is granted. The motion to dismiss the indictment is denied, because the court cannot speculate upon the nature and quality of the evidence presented to the grand jury.").