◆ SpookStack

FOOTNOTES - 2 8/ #In Paper, supra, the issue in question was whether liquor sfound on the suspect's premises pursuant to the execution fof an arrest warrant was lawfully seized. The opinion assumes that the arrest warrant by itself justified a search of the suspect's premises, but there is no @iscus- sion as to whether the searching officers had probzble cause to believe he was there. In Joines, supra, the issue in question was whether evidence Was levwfully seized by the IRS in the suspect's house @uring an attempt to execute an arrest warrant. In suppcrting a Genizl of the defendant's motion to suppress, the court stated that the arrest warrant entitled the IRS officers to enter and search the suspect! S house but did not indicate whether the officers had probable cause to believe he was ¢n the premises. In Retolaza, supra, the issue in questisn was whether the FBI , possessing an errest warrant, had law- fully searched the defendant's apartment after his wife had consented to the search. In rejecting tne defendant's - _. . claim, the court appeared to justify the search upon the independent grounds of consent and the possession of an arrest warrant. The court stated that the FBI, in asking the wife for permission to search, had reason to believe that the defendant was not in the apartment, but it is unclear whether this fact hac any relevance ts the issue of consent or the right to search the apartment by % virtue of the arrest warrant. See n.8, supra. U.S. v. Phillips, 497 F.2d 1131 (C.A.9 1974). (This case ‘involved searching the business premises: of the suspect and not his residence.) 435 F.2¢c 385, 393 (C.A.D.C. 1970}. Miller v. Unite@ States, 357 U.S. 301, 306 (1958) ; United States v. Phillips, 497 U.S. 1131, 1133 (C.A. ° 4974). U.S. v. Hendoaze, 433 F.2d 891 (C.A.5 1970), cert Gen. -S. 943; U.S. v. Ortiz, 311 F. Supp. 80 °(D.Ce. 1970), , 445 F.2d 1100 (C.A.10 1971), cert Gen. 404 U.S. 993, - oe ee et cont, ee ee ene a cae eee —