GORLAND
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant lacked standing to contest the search warrant and seizure because he did not claim ownership or interest in the seized property or premises.
Appellant was convicted of gambling violations after evidence seized under a search warrant was admitted at trial. He moved to quash the warrant, whic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standing To Contest Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced for gambling activities in violation of D.C. Code 1940, §§ 22-1501, 22-1502, and 22-1504.
He was arrested and certain evidence was seized by police officers in the course of executing a search warrant for the search of certain premises. The search warrant had been issued upon an affidavit which showed adequate probable cause to believe that gambling activities were being conducted on the premises named. Three months after the arrest, and well after indictment had been returned, appellant (filed a motion to quash the search warrant, which was denied, and thereafter at trial his objection to the admission of evidence seized under the search warrant was overruled.1
There was adequate probable cause for issuance of the search warrant, and the subsequent search, seizure and arrest were legal, but even more, the motion to quash the search warrant did not meet the requirements of Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. Appellant made no claim to ownership or possession of the property seized by police, or to an interest in the premises searched, and has no standing here to contest the seizure. See Harvey v. U. S. (Mann v. United States) D.C.Cir., 1952, 193 F. 2d 928.
Affirmed.
. Appellant’s counsel on appeal was not counsel at trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramirez v. United States, 294 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1961)
-
Christensen v. United States, 259 F.2d 192 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
-
Scoggins v. United States, 202 F.2d 211 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harvey v. United States, 193 F.2d 928 (D.C. Cir. 1952)