The opinion of the court was delivered by: YOUNGDAHL
Three of the defendants, who have been indicted in this case for violation of the District of Columbia lottery laws, D.C.Code 1951, § 22-1501 et seq.; have moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the premises of 1621 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., consisting of numbers slips and other numbers paraphernalia. The movants allege that the search warrant authorizing the search of the above premises was issued without probable cause and therefore the subsequent seizure was violative of the Fourth Amendment.
The Government argues that probable cause was present when the warrant was issued and also contends that the defendants do not have standing to raise this question because they do not allege ownership in or the right to the possession of the premises searched or the property seized.
Defendants answer that the motion stated that certain property 'was unlawfully seized from them'
and this is enough to meet that requirement. While the Court has some doubt whether this is a sufficient allegation of ownership or right to possession, the Court will proceed, nevertheless, to a consideration of the merits
The facts as alleged in the affidavit upon which the warrant was issued are as follows:
The Metropolitan Police had received information on February 19, 1957, linking the telephone number HO 2-3415 to a $ 2,000-a-day numbers game. The source stated that the bets were placed by a man giving the name of Walter Dimery and using a code number, 1D. On June 13, 1957, the Metropolitan Police received another call from the Arlington County police that HO 2-3415 was being called from Fort Belvoir and very heavy number bets were being called into that exchange.
Acting upon this information, Police Officer Andrews investigating the case made a series of phone calls to that number and after identifying himself as Walter Dimery and giving the code number 1D, received numbers information.
The Court is of the opinion that the actions by the Police Officer in this case are in almost all respects identical with the actions of the police which were sustained in Washington v. United States
and that the facts elicited constituted probable cause. Petitioners have attempted to distinguish the two cases, but as the subsequent analysis shows, no meaningful distinction is warranted.
Instant case U.S. v. Washington
Police Officer Andrews called No. 2-3415 and asked for the first number. He identified himself as Walt. He was asked his code and said it was 1D. He was then told the number was 09. (The number for that day was later determined to be 093.)
Police Officer Molle called TU 4840 and asked, 'What do you have for the first one?' He was told, '2'. (The number for that day was later determined to be 218.)