United States v. Janis

428 U.S. 433 (1976)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Los Angeles police obtained a warrant directing a search for bookmaking paraphernalia at two specified apartment locations in the city and, as well, on the respective persons of Morris Aaron Levine and Max Janis (P). P was arrested, and police seized property consisting of $4,940 in cash and certain wagering records. Police then telephoned an agent of the United States Internal Revenue Service and informed the agent that P had been arrested for bookmaking activity. It was determined the monies and records were from bookmaking. P had not filed any federal wagering tax return pertaining to bookmaking activities for that 77-day period. IRS (D) made an assessment against P. Charges were filed against P in Los Angeles Municipal Court for violation of the local gambling laws. A suppression hearing was held by the same judge who had issued the warrant. The then defendants pressed upon the court the case of Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969), which had been decided just three weeks earlier and after the search warrant had been issued. They urged that the affidavit did not set forth in sufficient detail the underlying circumstances to enable the issuing magistrate to determine independently the reliability of the information supplied by the informants. The judge granted the motion to quash the warrant. He then ordered that all items seized pursuant to it be returned except the cash that had been levied upon by the Internal Revenue Service. P filed a claim for refund of the $4,940. A year and a half later P filed suit for that amount. D answered and counterclaimed for the substantial unpaid balance of the assessment. P moved to suppress the evidence seized, and all copies thereof in the possession of the Service, and to quash the assessment. The evidence was excluded. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, by unpublished memorandum without opinion, affirmed on the basis of the District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. D appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.