United States v. Norman Eugene Gardner, 537 F.2d 861 (6th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Norman Eugene Gardner, 537 F.2d 861 (6th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jimenez (ca10, 2006-11-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jimenez
10th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Though there was probable cause to search for a handgun, the warrant authorized a search for “any firearms.” See United, States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam) (holding warrant was overbroad when probable cause existed to search for a pistol but warrant permitted search and seizure of “all firearms and ammunition”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Groh v. Ramirez (2×)
SCOTUS · 2004 · confidence medium
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476 (1965); United States v. Cardwell, 680 F. 2d 75, 77-78 (CA9 1982); United States v. Crozier, 674 F. 2d 1293, 1299 (CA9 1982); United States v. Klein, 565 F. 2d 183, 185 (CA1 1977); United States v. Gardner, 537 F. 2d 861, 862 (CA6 1976); United States v. Marti, 421 F. 2d 1263 , 1268-1269 *560 (CA2 1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Tracey Allen Campbell
6th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Campbell analogizes his case to United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir.1976), in which this court determined that when executing a warrant for “all firearms and ammunition,” the police had probable cause to search for a .38-caliber pistol allegedly used in a murder, but the officers did not have probable cause to seize a sawed-off shotgun, which was suppressed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marcus
E.D.N.Y · 1992 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
What is significant here is the admonition of the Court of Appeals that, while "severance may be appropriate in theory", it is not necessarily appropriate in a particular case: The doctrine is not available where no part of the warrant is sufficiently particularized, see [United States v.] Card-well, 680 F.2d [75,] at 78 [(9th Cir.1982)]; cf. United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir.1976) (per Curiam), where no portion of the warrant may be meaningfully severed, see [United States v.] Christine, 687 F.2d [749,] at 754 [(3rd Cir.1982)], or where the sufficiently particularized porti…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Russell R. George, AKA Rusty, and Pamela A. Johnson-Sherman, Francis R. Lajoice
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
The doctrine is not available where no part of the warrant is suffi *80 ciently particularized, see Cardwell, 680 F.2d at 78 ; cf. United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam), where no portion of the warrant may be meaningfully severed, see Christine, 687 F.2d at 754 , or where the sufficiently particularized portions make up only an insignificant or tangential part of the warrant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John L. Parsons
6th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 58 (1967); United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir.1976); United States v. Sanchez, 509 F.2d 886, 889 (6th Cir.1975). 11 The warrant in this case offered an adequate constraint on the searching officers' discretion, even though it did not specifically state that the police were looking for a .12 gauge shotgun.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Massachusetts v. Sheppard
SCOTUS · 1984 · confidence medium
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476 (1965); United States v. Cardwell, 680 F. 2d 75, 77-78 (CA9 1982); United States v. Crozier, 674 F. 2d 1293, 1299 (CA9 1982); United States v. Klein, 565 F. 2d 183, 185 (CA1 1977); United States v. Gardner, 537 F. 2d 861, 862 (CA6 1976); United States v. Marti, 421 F. 2d 1263, 1268-1269 (CA2 1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Namen v. State (2×)
Alaska Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d at 733-34 ; United States v. Abrams, 615 F.2d at 543-45 ; United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir.1976); United States v. Townsend, 394 F.Supp. at 745-47 ; Lo ckridge v. Superior Court, 80 Cal.Rptr. at 232-33; State v. Sweatt, 427 A.2d at 948-50 ; Commonwealth v. Taylor, 418 N.E.2d at 1228-32 ; People v. Harmon, 46 Ill.Dec. at 29-30 , 413 N.E.2d at 469-70 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. La Monte
E.D. Pa. · 1978 · confidence medium
It appears that a movant has the burden of proof in a suppression hearing, Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939); United States v. Phillips, 540 F.2d 319, 325-26 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1000 , 97 S.Ct. 530 , 50 L.Ed.2d 611 (1976); United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir. 1976); Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 502 F.2d 914, 922 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 909 , 95 S.Ct. 829 , 42 L.Ed.2d 839 (1975); United States v. Vigo, 413 F.2d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v. Lyon, 397 F.2d 505, 508 (7th Cir.), ce…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Richard L. Swihart
6th Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
We are not faced here with a situation where some of the more common methods of supporting the credibility of the informant were present, e. g., that the affiant had received reliable law enforcement information from the Informant previously, Jones v. United States, supra; United States v. Jenkins, supra, at 823; that the informant’s declaration was against his penal interest, United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583-84 , 91 S.Ct. 2075 , 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971); United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rosenbarger, 536 F.2d 715, 719 (6th Cir.), cert. deni…
cited Cited "see" United States v. White
N.D. Ill. · 1982 · signal: accord · confidence high
This opinion need not elaborate on this aspect of the decisions in Roche and Lafayette Academy; accord, United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861, 862 (6th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Abernathy
usnmcmilrev · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861 (6th Cir. 1976), where a search warrant for “all firearms and ammunition” was held to be over-broad because probable cause existed only for seizure of a .38 caliber pistol.
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Lee
E.D. Ky. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Gardner, 537 F.2d 861 (6th Cir. 1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Norman Eugene GARDNER, Defendant-Appellee
76--1054.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jul 6, 1976.
537 F.2d 861
Ralph B. Guy, Jr., U. S. Atty., Michael P. Millikin, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant., Anthony C. Lutostanski (Court-appointed GJA), Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellee.
Weick, Peck, McCree.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The government appeals from an order granting a motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun seized pursuant to a warrant issued by a state court judge. We affirm the district court’s order on the ground that the search warrant authorizing the seizure of “all firearms and ammunition” was over-broad.

Based on the affidavit filed in support of the warrant, probable cause existed, if at all, to search solely for a .38 caliber pistol that was allegedly used in an armed robbery and murder. The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to particularly describe the items to be seized. Warrants may not authorize general searches, nor may they permit police officers to exercise undirected discretion in determining what to seize. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 58, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967); United States v. Sanchez, 509 F.2d 886, 889 (6th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, the district court properly suppressed the gun, since the warrant was defective. Also, since the officer who seized it had no right to be on the premises, he cannot avail himself of the plain view doctrine as urged by the government. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).

The district court also held that the affidavit did not contain information sufficient to establish the informant’s credibility as required by Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). We disagree with this determination ber cause the informant’s declaration that he had participated in other armed robberies was against his penal interest, and therefore provided a sufficient basis for crediting his statement that he saw weapons in appellee’s apartment. United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971).

In affirming, however, we observe that the district court erred in stating that it would resolve any doubt surrounding the warrant against the government, because the crime under investigation was “obviously a local case.” So long as Gardner was indicted for a federal offense, it is irrelevant that the crime came to light during a state investigation. The movant in a suppression hearing has the burden of proof. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341-42, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939); United States v. Thompson, 409 F.2d 113, 117 (6th Cir. 1969). However, since the court was presented solely with a question of law in determining the sufficiency of the affidavit and the legality of the warrant, there were no factual disputes in which the court might have applied an erroneous standard.

AFFIRMED.

WEICK, J., would reverse the order suppressing the evidence. He concurs in this per curiam except with reference to its determination of overbreadth.