Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES v. LANE et al., 1931 — 51 F.2d 241 · caselaw · US
Corporations
UNITED STATES v. LANE et al.
51 F.2d 241·United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York·1931
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES v. LANE et al.
No. 28746.
District Court, E. D. New York.
June 25, 1931.
Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Frederick J. Peper, of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.
Arthur A. Kestler, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendants.
[MAJORITY — BYERS, District Judge.]
BYERS, District Judge.
Motion for order suppressing evidence.
The claim is made that the defendants are members of a club, and that the club, property was the subject of an unlawful search.
The matter cannot be disposed of on the present state of the record, and, if the mo-tion is to be pressed, a hearing will be had, at which the officers of the club should be produced, together with the minutes books and all other records having to do with the club activities; the original certificate of incorporation, and the lease of the property occupied by the club at the time of the search in question. In other words, it will be necessary to establish, by fairly complete evidence, the bona fides of the club and its activities before a determination may be had as to the right of these defendants to raise the question of the legality of the search.