ABEL, ALIAS "MARK," ALIAS COLLINS, ALIAS GOLDFUS,
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 ordered reargument to address specific constitutional questions regarding the validity of an administrative warrant and subsequent searches and seizures.
The case involves a petitioner arrested and searched based on an administrative warrant issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The peti…
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 Constitutional Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Certiorari, 358 U. S. 813 to the .United' States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Argued February 24-25, 1959.
It is ordered that this case be set for reargument on October 12, 1959, at the head of the calendar for that date.’ Upon reargument counsel are requested to discuss in their further briefs and oral arguments, in addition to other issues, the following questions:
1. Whether under the laws and Constitution of the United States (a) the administrative warrant of the New York Acting District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service was validly issued, (b) such administrative warrant constituted a valid basis. for arresting petitioner or taking him into custody, and (c) such warrant furnished a valid basis for the searches and seizures affecting his person, luggage, and the room occupied by him at the Hotel Latham.
2. Whether,. independently of such administrative warrant, petitioner’s arrest, and the searches, and seizures affecting his person, luggage, and the room occupied by him at the Hotel Latham, were valid under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
. 3. Whether on the record before us the issues involved in Questions “1 (a),” “1 (b),” and “2” are properly before the Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1968)…be valid for its limited purpose even though not supported by a sworn affidavit stating probable cause; but the Court ordered reargument on the question whether the warrant had been validly issued in petitioner’s case. 362 U. S., at 219, n., par. 1; 359 U. S. 940. In Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74, the petitioner argued that an exclusionary rule should apply to the fruit of an unreasonable search by state officials solely because they acted in concert with federal officers (see Weeks v. United States,…
-
Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (U.S. 1960)…ation Service warrant and, together with other articles obtained from such leads, are introduced as evidence in a prosecution for espionage?” Argument was first heard at October Term, 1958. The case having been set down for reargument at this Term, 359 U. S. 940, counsel were asked to discuss a series of additional questions, set out in the margin.* We have considered the case on the assumption that the conviction must be reversed should we find challenged items of evidence to have been seized in violation…
Authorities Cited
- Abel v. United States, 358 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1958)
- United States v. Isthmian S.S. Co., 358 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1958)