Harry S. Stonehill and Robert P. Brooks v. United States

This appeal 1 is from an interlocutory order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California which denied appellants’ motion to suppress evidence in a civil action brought by the United States of America.

The United States, in January, 1965, filed a complaint seeking foreclosure of Federal tax liens securing Federal income tax liabilities outstanding against *740 Harry S. Stonehill and Robert P. Brooks for 1958 through 1961, inclusive. Taxpayers (appellants Stonehill and Brooks) moved to suppress certain evidence they claimed had been obtained in violation of taxpayers’ Constitutional rights.

The trial court held a hearing on the motion, later entering its written order and opinion denying the motion to suppress. United States v. Stonehill, 274 F.Supp. 420 . Subsequently, the trial court granted a certificate under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b); taxpayers then petitioned for and were granted permission from this court to appeal from the order.

The question before this court is whether the district court erred in denying taxpayers’ motion to suppress. Taxpayers contend that the documents in question should have been suppressed as evidence even if seized by…

(dissenting) :

Contrary to the impression left by the majority, the evidence which it holds admissible was obtained by searches and seizures which flagrantly violated basic provisions of the Philippine Constitution borrowed directly from the Fourth Amendment. 1 The warrants were not issued “upon probable cause.” 2 Moreover, they were general warrants, containing no language “particularly describing the * * * things to be seized.” 3 In suppressing the evidence the Supreme Court of the Philippines said, “To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution. * * *” Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 Phil.Sup.Ct.Rpts.Ann. 383, 392 (1967). 4 It is clear that the raids would be equally lawless under the Fourth Amendment.

The majority concludes that the evidence is nonetheless admissible in federal court because it was seized by foreign officials, to whom the Fourth Amendment does not apply, 6 and was turned over to United States agents “on a silver platter.” Lustig v. United States, 338 U.S. 74, 79 , 69 S.Ct. 1372 , 93 L.Ed. 1819 (1949).

Under the “silver platter” doctrine, evidence seized by state…

405 F.2d 738 69-1 USTC P 9117 Harry S. STONEHILL and Robert P. Brooks, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 22346. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Dec. 9, 1968, Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1969. 1 Bertram H. Ross (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., Trammel, Rand & Nathan, Washington, D.C., for appellants. 2 John J. McCarthy (argued), Lee A. Jackson, Joseph M. Howard, Jerome H. Fridkin, Dept. of Justice, Mitchell Rogovin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Wm. M. Byrne, U.S. Atty., Loyal E. Keir, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. 3 Before CHAMBERS and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and * BELLONI, District Judge. 4 BELLONI, District Judge. 5 This appeal 1 is from an interlocutory order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California which denied appellants' motion to suppress evidence in a civil action brought by the United States of America. 6 The United States, in January, 1965, Filed a complaint seeking foreclosure of Federal tax liens securing Federal income tax liabilities outstanding against Harry S. Stonehill and Robert P. Brooks for 1958 through 1961, inclusive. Taxpayers (appellants Stonehill and Brooks)…