§

United States v. Ramos

282 F. Supp. 354 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
United States v. Ramos

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Esters

    336 F. Supp. 214 (E.D. Mich. 1972)   Cited 16 times
    In United States v. Esters (D.C. Mich. 1972), 336 F. Supp. 214, the court stated that the test to be applied in these circumstances is not whether the officers had actual knowledge of the character of the apartment but whether the officers should have known that the apartment was more than a one-family unit when they applied for the warrant, citing Owens v. Scafati (D.C. Mass. 1967), 273 F. Supp. 428, cert. denied (1968), 391 U.S. 969, 20 L.Ed.2d 883, 88 S.Ct. 2043.

    . . . [emphasis supplied]. Two companion cases, United States v. Ramos, 282 F. Supp. 354 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), and United States v. Gomez, 42 F.R.D. 347 (1967), have been cited by the Government in support of its position on this point. The search warrant alleged to be defective in those cases authorized the search of "130 W. 74th St., Basement Apt., New York, N.Y."

  2. United States v. Gitcho

    601 F.2d 369 (8th Cir. 1979)   Cited 122 times
    Finding that the officers' surveillance of the premises provided sufficient basis that the property intended to be searched was the property actually searched

    v. Smith, 462 F.2d 456, 460-461 (8th Cir. 1972); Hanger v. United States, 398 F.2d 91, 98-99 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1119, 89 S.Ct. 995, 22 L.Ed.2d 124 (1969), that the premises intended to be searched are adjacent to those described and all are under the control of the defendant, see United States v. Melancon, 462 F.2d 82 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1038, 93 S.Ct. 516, 34 L.Ed.2d 487 (1972), that the incorrect address describes a place not in existence, or that other parts of the description which are correct limit the place to be searched to one place, seeUnited States v. Darensbourg, supra at 988; United States v. Godman, 312 F. Supp. 556 (N.D.Ind. 1970), and that the premises which were intended to be searched had previously been surveilled or were being surveilled while the warrant was obtained. See United States v. Prout, supra at 388; United States v. Hassell, 427 F.2d 348 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Curwood, 338 F. Supp. 1104, 1112 (D.Mass. 1972); United States v. Ramos, 282 F. Supp. 354, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). The facts, as found by the District Court, make this case admittedly close.

  3. United States v. Curwood

    338 F. Supp. 1104 (D. Mass. 1972)   Cited 10 times
    In Curwood the failure to identify the source of information left a question of whether that information was reliable or not.

    In this connection see United States v. Hassell, 427 F.2d 348 (6th Cir. 1970), in which asserted descriptive inaccuracies in an affidavit were held not to invalidate a search warrant obtained by one officer while three others remained on the scene. See also United States v. Ramos, 282 F. Supp. 354, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). Defendants also rely upon the cases of King v. United States, 282 F.2d 398, 400 n. 4 (4th Cir. 1960) and United States v. Carignan, 286 F. Supp. 284 (D.Mass. 1967).

  4. People v. Franks

    54 Mich. App. 729 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 13 times
    In Franks, this Court held that, where the police know that a building they wish to search has multiple units, the search warrant must specify the subunit or subunits they wish to search.

    "There has been no showing that the police officers knew or should have known from its physical appearance that 1 Thomas Park was a multiple dwelling house when they applied for the warrants." In United States v Ramos, 282 F. Supp. 354 (SD NY, 1968), a search made pursuant to a warrant describing the place to be searched as "130 West 74th Street, basement apartment, New York, New York" was held valid even though there was more than one basement apartment. The Court stated at 355: