United States v. Prendergast, 436 F. Supp. 931 (W.D. Pa. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Prendergast, 436 F. Supp. 931 (W.D. Pa. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Osborne (tned, 1980-07-07)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 21 U.S.C. § 801-886 cited 1× in this case · 2 total citations of statute #1 21 U.S.C. § 880(d)(1) cited 1× in this case · 1 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Osborne
E.D. Tenn. · 1980 · confidence medium
United States v. Prendergast, D.C.Pa. (1977), 436 F.Supp. 931, 932 [1], affirmed C.A. 3d (1978), 585 F.2d 69 ; United States v. Greenberg, D.C.Pa. (1971), 334 F.Supp. 364, 367 ; see Camara v. Municipal Court (1967), 387 U.S. 523, 538 , 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1735 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930, 940-941 (the passage of a certain period without inspection might of itself be sufficient in a given situation to justify the issuance of a warrant.) 2 As a part of the statutory scheme involved, regulations of the Drug Enforcement Administration contemplate the inspection of each regulated establishment “ * * * once every…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Monroe Charles Schiffman
5th Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
United States v. Prendergast, 436 F.Supp. 931, 932 (W.D.Pa. 1977); United States v. Greenberg, 334 F.Supp. 364, 367 (W.D.Pa.1971).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Burka
E.D. Pa. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Prendergast, 436 F.Supp. 931 (W.D.Pa.1977), affirmed, 585 F.2d 69, 70 (3d Cir.1978); United States v. Greenberg, 334 F.Supp. 364, 367 (W.D.Pa.1971); United States v. Goldfine, 538 F.2d 815, 818-819 (9th Cir.1976); United States v. Osborne, 512 F.Supp. 413, 414 (E.D.Tenn.1980); see also Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 538 , 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1735 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (the passage of a certain period of time without inspection might of itself be sufficient to justify issuance of warrant).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Thomas R. PRENDERGAST
Crim. 76-273.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.
Sep 7, 1977.
436 F. Supp. 931
James J. West, Charles F. Scarlata, Asst. U. S. Attys., Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Cohill.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COHILL, District Judge.

We have before us defendant, Thomas R. Prendergast’s, motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(f) and 12(b). On May 26, 1977, a hearing was held regarding this motion and testimony was taken.

At the time of the events complained ch. defendant was engaged in the operation of Conroy’s Pharmacy in Coraopolis, Pa. On April 30, 1976, William W. Warner, a compliance investigator for the Drug Enforcement Administration, obtained an inspection warrant signed by a United States magistrate pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-966 (hereafter “the Act”).

Pursuant to the authority of this warrant, Agent Warner conducted inspections of defendant’s place of business on April 30, May 3 and May 6, 1976. Following the inspections a four count indictment was returned charging violations of the Act, namely failing “to make, keep or furnish” certain records, (21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5)); knowing, intentionally and unlawfully distributing a Schedule IV Controlled Substance (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); and two counts of making false and fraudulent statements of material fact (18 U.S.C. § 1001).

Defendant avers that the utilization of an administrative warrant was improper and that this utilization was an abuse of the statutory scheme authorizing such warrants and a subterfuge to avoid the probable cause burden applicable to criminal search warrants.

Section 880(d) of the Act governs the issuance of administrative inspection warrants. It requires that such warrants be issued by a judge or magistrate and then only on a showing of probable cause. But probable cause is defined by the Act as:

“a valid public interest in the effective enforcement of this subchapter [21 U.S. C.A. §§ 801-886] or regulations thereunder sufficient to justify administrative inspections of the area . . .”21 U.S.C.A. § 880(d)(1).

There is a valid public interest in insuring compliance with the record keeping requirements of the Act. It would be proper to inspect a particular premises merely because a substantial period of time had passed since the last inspection. United States v. Greenberg, 334 F.Supp. 364, 367 (W.D.Pa.1971). In the instant case no inspection had ever been made previously.

When the extent of the inspection is limited to an administrative inspection, an inspection warrant issued upon probable cause as defined by the Act is all that is required; a showing of the probable cause applicable to criminal search warrants is not required. United States v. Goldfine, 538 F.2d 815 (9th Cir. 1976). In the instant case the extent of the intrusion was limited to administrative inspections which were conducted promptly and properly.

We hold that the inspections were conducted in accordance with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 880(d) and therefore that any matters revealed by those inspections are not subject to suppression.

The motion will be denied.