At page 505 Determining reasonableness of extended nighttime search under warrant9 citing casesholding that conduct of searching officers was within authorization of warrant where actual searching began at 4:00 in afternoon and was not completed until after 10:00 at night
- Davis v. New Mexico Dep't of Game & Fish, No. 1:18-cv-00415 (D.N.M. Feb. 4, 2020).(search that began at 4:00 pm and not completed until after 10:00 pm did not violate the terms of the daytime warrant)
- United States v. Zhang, 634 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2009).published (holding that conduct of searching officers was within authorization of warrant where actual searching began at 4:00 in afternoon and was not completed until after 10:00 at night)
- State v. Finesmith, 968 A.2d 715 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009).publishedSee, e.g., United States v. Keszthelyi, 308 F. 3d 557, 568-69 (6th Cir.2002); United States v. Squillacote, 221 F. 3d 542 , 557-58 (4th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 971 , 121 S.Ct. 1601 , 149 L.Ed. 2d 468 (2001); United States v. Gerb…
- United States v. Theresa Marie Squillacote, A/K/A Tina, A/K/A Mary Teresa Miller, A/K/A the Swan, A/K/A Margaret, A/K/A Margit, A/K/A Margret, A/K/A Margrit, A/K/A Lisa Martin, A/K/A Resi, A/K/A Anne, United States of Am. v. Kurt Alan Stand, A/K/A Ken, A/K/A Junior, A/K/A Alan David Jackson, 221 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 2000).publishedSee, e.g., United States v. Young, 877 F.2d 1099, 1104-05 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Burgard, 551 F.2d 190, 193 (8th Cir. 1977); United States v. Joseph, 278 F.2d 504, 505 (3rd Cir. 1960) (per curiam).
- United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 2000).publishedSee, e.g., United States v. Young, 877 F.2d 1099, 1104-05 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Burgard, 551 F.2d 190, 193 (8th Cir.1977); United States v. Joseph, 278 F.2d 504, 505 (3rd Cir.1960) (per curiam).
- United States v. Stephen D. Young, 877 F.2d 1099 (1st Cir. 1989).publishedSee United States v. Schoenheit, 856 F.2d 74, 77 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Burgard, 551 F.2d 190, 193 (8th Cir.1977); United States v. Joseph, 278 F.2d 504, 505 (3d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 823 , 81 S.Ct. 59 , 5 L.…
- State v. Stephenson, 245 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 1976).publishedThis issue was addressed in United States v. Joseph, 278 F. 2d 504, 505 (3 Cir.), certiorari denied, 364 U. S. 823 , 81 S. Ct. 59 , 5 L. ed. 2d 52 (1960): “We have also considered that the search warrant authorized a daytime search and tha…
- State v. Sargent, 2005 ME 78, 875 A.2d 125.published(holding that search that began at 4 P.M. but not concluded until after 10 P.M. was within the daytime authorization of the warrant)
- State v. Valenzuela, 536 A.2d 1252 (N.H. 1987).publishedThis result accords with federal cases decided under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41; see United States v. Burgard, 551 F.2d 190, 193 (8th Cir. 1977); see also United States v. Joseph, 278 F.2d 504, 505 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 364…
At page 504 cited at this page1 citing case
- Vaughn v. State, 931 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).published Thomas, 368 F.2d at 944 (quoting, Wiley, 278 F.2d at 504).
Other citing cases
- State v. Herhal, 307 A.2d 553 (Del. Super. Ct. 1973).published
- People v. Mongno, 67 Misc. 2d 815 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1971).published
- United States v. One 1962 Cadillac, Four Door Sedan Auto., Motor No. 62b 025470 Frank J. Daniello, 397 F.2d 796 (3d Cir. 1968).published
- United States v. Grosso, 225 F. Supp. 161 (W.D. Pa. 1964).published
- United States v. Escott, 205 F. Supp. 196 (D. Mass. 1962).published
- United States v. Richard E. Woodring, 444 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1971).published
- People v. McDonald, 47 Misc. 2d 1040 (1965).published
v.
Peter JOSEPH, Also Known as Pete Joseph, Appellant
These appeals are from convictions on charges of willful failure to pay the special occupational tax on wagering and willful failure to file excise tax returns on wagers. We are satisfied that the guilt of the accused was adequately established at the trial and that the record reveals no reversible error.
Most of the issues presented on these appeals concern the issuance and execution of a search warrant which yielded important evidence against appellant. A principal objection challenges the use of hearsay evidence in determining probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. The propriety of this course is now clearly established by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jones v. United States, 1960, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697. Beyond the propriety of considering such hearsay, we are satisfied that the totality of the circumstances brought to the attention of the issuing officer made it reasonable for him to credit and believe the basic hearsay assertion that the place to be searched was being used for conducting a wagering business.
We have also considered that the search warrant authorized a daytime search and that the actual searching of the premises in question, which began about four o’clock in the afternoon, was not completed until after ten o'clock at night. However, the evidence does not show that the search made after nightfall was more than a reasonable continuation of the search which began in the afternoon. On the present record the conduct of the searching officers was within the authorization of the warrant.
No other point requires discussion. We do, however, make explicit our conclusion that, in the light of United States v. Kahriger, 1953, 345 U.S. 22, 73 S.Ct. 510, 97 L.Ed. 754, there is no merit in an attack which the appellant makes on the constitutionality of the wagering statute.
Conviction and sentence will be affirmed.