Petition — Andresen v. Maryland
Supreme Court brief1976
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Supreme Court, U. & |
kitED
| el
APPENDIX Nov 20 1975
Supreme Court of the Anited States
OCTOBER TERM, 1974
No. 74-1646
PETER C. ANDRESEN,
Petitioner,
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT
OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 28, 1975
CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 6, 1975
SE PE Ee ED
ABB DUPLICATORS, INC.-1732 Eye Seren, N.W.—Washingten, 0.C.—388-46537
INDEX
Opinion of the Court of Special Appeals of
RS SS oh ee ee eer
Letter from the Clerk of the Court of Special
Appeals of Maryland noting denial of Motion
for Reargument and Modification of Opinion ... A. 89
Mandate of the Court of Special Appeals of
64 6 Goa ot ae ee a Ts
Order of Court of Appeals of Maryland denying
Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Special
Oe ee
Letter from the Clerk of the Court of Appeals
of Maryland noting denial of Motions for
Statement of Reasons for Denial of Writ
of Certiorari to Court of Special Appeals
and for Reconsideration of Petition for
Writ of Certiorari to Court of Special Appeals . . . A. 93
(The above pages are included in the Appendix to Petition for
Writ of Certiorari previously submitted.)
pemsowamt Geciet Gateies . ww ttl tl tl tlt tl (ii)
Search Warrant — 3700 Decatur Ave. ....... A. 94
Application and Affidavit for a Search
Warrant — 3700 Decatur Ave... . ....... A977
Excerpts from Search Warrant — 3514
gS ea eS ites 4a
Excerpts from Application and Affidavit for a Search
Warrant — 3514 Plyers Mili Road ...... . A. 116
C—O
(ii)
Report and Return of Search Warrant —
3700 Decatur Avenue .
Report and Return of Search Warrant —
3514 Plyers Mill Road
Mction to Suppress Evidence
Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Suppress Evidence
Memorandum and Order re: Motion to
Suppress Evidence
Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings
on Motions
Austin L. Moyer
Joseph Lawrence
Deborah Nalls ar
Joseph Lawrence. .
Argument by Mr. Lam
Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings
on Merits
Carl Zentz .
George Young
List of Relevant Docket Entries
State of Maryland v. Peter C. Andresen — No. 3100,
Record received from the Clerk of the Circuit Court
for Montgomery County, March 6, 1973
Search Warrants, etc. received from Clerk of the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County and filed, April 9,
1973
ee oe
136
144
155
156
165
166
173
176
(iii)
Mem. and Court order filed that motion to suppress evidence
be granted to certain items and denied as to others, etc.,
dated April 19, 1973
Verdict “Guilty on the Ist and 2nd Counts” and by the Court
Judgment “Guilty”, May 30, 1973
Defendant sentenced to Division of Correction for the period of
Two Years on the Ist Count and Two Years on the 2nd Count
to run concurrent with sentence on the Ist count, both dating from
the Sth day of October 1973 cr on date mandate is returned from
the Court of Special Appeals if Appeal is timely filed, October 5,
1973
State of Maryland v. Peter C. Andresen, Record received from
Clerk of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, March 6,
1973, No. 3103
Charge: Larceny After Trust of One Hundred Dollars or More
(3 Counts); Embezzlement (3 Counts); Fraudulent Misappropriation
by Fiduciary (3 Counts); False Pretenses (4 Counts); Forgery
(1 Count); Uttering (1 Count); Failure to Pay Tax and Recorda-
tion Charge (1 Count); Misrepresentation of Taxable Consideration
(1 Count)
Answer of State to Motion for Discovery and Inspection filed with
service, April 11, 1973
Search Warrants, etc. received from Clerk of the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County and filed, April 9, 1973.
Mem. and Court order filed that motion to suppress evidence
granted to certain items and denied as to others, etc. (S.W. 3)
April 19, 1973
Defendant sentenced to Division of Correction for the period of
Two Years on the 3rd Count to run concurrent with sentence
in No. 3100 Criminals; Two Years on the 4th Count to run con-
current with sentence on the 3rd Count and with sentence in No.
3100 Criminals; Two Years on the 7th Count to run concurrent
with sentence on 3rd and 4th Counts and with sentence in No. 3100
Criminals; Two Years on the 8th Count to run concurrent with sentence
(iv)
on the 3rd, 4th and 7th Counts and with sentence in No. 3100
Criminals; Two Years on the 11th Count to run concurrent with
sentence on the 3rd, 4th, 7th and 8th Counts and with sentence
in No. 3100 Criminals and Two Years on the 12th Count to run
Concurrent with sentence on 3rd, 4th, 7th and 11th Counts, + all
dating from the Sth day of October 1973 or on date mandate is
returned from the Court of Special Appeals if Appeal is timely
filed, October 5, 1973
A.94
[dated October 30, 1972]
SEARCH WARRANT
STATE OF MARYLAND
vs
THE PREMISES KNOWN AS LAW OFFICES OF
PETER CHRISTIAN ANDRESEN, A PARTICULAR
BUILDING WITHIN THE COMPLEX OF “OFFICES
AND STORES KNOWN AS 3700 DECATUR
AVENUE WITH NUMERALS 3700 SHOWN
TO THE LEFT OF THE ENTRANCE WAY,
SAID PREMISES LOCATED ON THE SECOND
FLOOR OF A TWO STORY RED BRICK
BUILDING WITH ONLY THE SECOND FLOOR
FRONTING ON DECATUR AVENUE, THE
DESCRIPTION OF SAID PREMISES APPEARS
ON WINDOWS TO THE LEFT OF ENTRANCE WAY,
AS WELL AS WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR
FACING CONNECTICUT AVENUE AS “LAW OFFICES
PETER CHRISTIAN ANDRESEN,” ALL OF WHICH
IS LOCATED IN KENSINGTON, MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, MARYLAND.
STATE OF MARYLAND
MONTGOMERY COUNTY:
TO: Kenneth W. Watkins, Superintendant of the Depart-
ment of Police, Montgomery County, Maryland, or any
other person authorized or whose assistant is requested
or is needed. Greetings:
Whereas an affidavit having been made before me by
Special Investigators Austin A. Moyer and Joseph L.
Lawrence of the Bi-County Major Frauds Unit of the
Montgomery County and Prince George's County State's
Attorneys’ Offices, that they have probable cause to be-
lieve that on the premises known as Law Offices of Peter
Christian Andresen, a particular building within the complex
A.95
of offices and stores known as 3700 Decatur Avenue with
numerals 3700 shown to the left of the entrance wav, said
premises located on the second floor of a two story red '
brick building with only the second floor fronting on
Decatur Avenue, the description of said premises appears
on windows to the left of entrance way as well as win-
dows on the second floor facing Connecticut Avenue as
"Law Offices Peter Christian Andresen," all of which is
located in Kensington, Montgomery County, Maryland
there are now concealed upon said premises the following
items pertaining to sale, purchase, settlement and con-
veyance of lot 13, block T, Potomac Woods subdivision,
Montgomery County, Maryland:
title notes, title abstracts, title rundowns; contracts of
sale and/or assignments from Raffaele Antonelli and
Rocco Caniglia to Mount Vernon Development Corpora-
tion and/or others; lien payoff correspondence and lien
pay-off memoranda to and from lienholders and note-
holders; correspondence and memoranda to and from
trustees of deeds of trust; lenders instructions for a con-
struction joan or construction and permanent loan; dis-
bursement sheets and disbursement memoranda; checks,
check stubs and ledger sheets indicating disbursement
upon settlement; correspondence and memoranda concern-
ing disbursements upon settlement; settlement statements
and settlement memoranda; fully or partially prepared
deed of trust releases, whether or not executed and
whether or not recorded; books, records, documents,
papers, memoranda and correspondence, showing or tend-
ing to show a fradulent intent, and/or knowledge as ele-
ments of the crime of false pretenses, in violation of
Article 27, Section 140, of the Annotated Code of Mary-
land, 1957 Edition, as amended and revised, together with
A.96
other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime at
this unknown.
The grounds for search and basis for probable cause are
set forth in the attached Application for the issuance of
a search warrant, which grounds are as fully specified in
the attached Application and Affidavit affixed hereto and
made a part of this search warrant.
You are therefore commanded, with the necessary and
proper assistance to:
(a) Enter and search the suspected premises, as com-
pletely described as aforesaid;
(b) Open and search any desks, cabinets, safes, and
any other items and places within the captioned premises;
(c) Seize all evidence and paraphernalia permitted by
law;
(d) And bring said evidence and paraphernalia before
me, the subscriber, or some other judge of the 6th Judicial
Circuit, to be retained according to law.
Hereof fail not at your peril and have you then and there
this warrant.
Given under my hand this 30% day of October, in the
year of our Lord, One Thousand nine hundred and seventy
two.
/s/ signature illegible
Judge of the Sixth Judicial Cir-
cuit
Montgomery County, Maryland
A.97
{dated October 30, 1972]
o o *
APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR A
SEARCH WARRANT
TO: The Honorable Judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit
of Maryland
Application is herewith made for a Search and Seizure
Warrant in that there is probable cause to believe that
the laws relating to false pretenses, as defined in Article
27, Section 140 of the Annotated Code of Maryland,
1957 Edition as Amended and revised are being violated
upon the following premises:
A particular building within the complex of office build-
ings and stores known as 3700 Decatur Avenue with the
numerals 3700 shown to the left of the entrance way,
said premises located on the second floor of a two story
red brick building with only the second floor of same
fronting on Decatur Avenue. The description of premise
appears on windows to the left of entrance way, as well
as windows on the second floor facing Connecticut Avenue
as ''Law Offices Peter Christian Andresen'’, all of which
is located in Kensington, Montgomery County, Maryland.
The names of your affiants are Special Investigator (S/
1) Austin A. Moyer and Special Investigator (S/I) Joseph
L. Lawrence of the Bi-County for Montgomery County,
Maryland and the State's Attorney for Prince George's
County, Maryland.
The facts tending to establish the grounds for this appli-
cation and the basis for probable cause are as follows:
On or about October 25, 1972, and on previous occa-
ssions, S/Il Austin A. Moyer interviewed George Young
A.98
and Audrey E. Young, and they related to him the
following:
That George Young and Audrey E. Young are and have
been, respectively, Secretary and President of both Young
Contracting Company, Inc. and Steven Development Cor-
poration. On or about May 8, 1972 Young Contracting
Company, Inc. and Standard Investment Corporation (a
subsidiary of Standard Savings and Loan Association of
Gaithersburg) formed a joint venture known as Standard-
Young Associates, for the purpose of dividing all joint
real estate development profits and losses on a 50%-50%
net basis. Your affiants have in their possession and have
read the Standard-Young Associates Joint Venture agree-
ment and George and Audrey E. Young's representations
are correct. They also represented to S/I Moyer that
over the years they have had numerous business transac-
tions for which Peter C. Andresen was the legal counsel
and settlement attorney and these transactions were suc-
cessfully consummated and to the best of the Young's
knowledge competently performed, thus causing them to
strongly rely upon what they considered to be Andresen's
expert legal counseling.
George Young and Audrey E. Young also related to
S/I Moyer that on or about July 18, 1972 they were
present in the law offices of Peter C. Andresen, 3700
Decatur Avenue, Kensington, Maryland for the purpose of
settlement of their purchase from the seller of lot 13,
block T, Section 10, Potomac Woods subdivision, Mont-
gomery County, Maryland (hereinafter referred to as 13T).
As a consequence of this settlement, Young Contracting
Company, Inc. was conveyed title to 13T from the legal
titleholders, Raffaele Antonelli and Rocco Caniglia, by
A.99
deed dated June 4, 1972, and recorded in the land rec-
ords of Montgomery County on July 19, 1972 at 10:10
A.M. in liber 3922, folio 344 (a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit #1). Raffaele
Antonillo and Rocco Caniglia had been conveyed title to
13T by Clark-King Construction Company, Inc. by deed
dated October 31, 1969 and recorded in the land records
of Montgomery County on November 28, 1969 at liber
3922, folio 344 (a copy of which is attached hereto and
made a part hereof as Exhibit #2). In this transaction,
Andresen was the settlement attorney for Raffaele Anto-
nelli according to him.
During the course of this settlement, George Young in-
quired of Peter C. Andresen, who was acting as settlement
attorney for both seller and buyer, whether or not it was
necessary for them to obtain for Young Contracting Com-
pany, Inc., in whose name the property was to be titled,
title insurance to the extent of the $12,000.00 purchase
price of the property. Andresen responded, ‘'No, you
don't . . . The title is clear . . . It's a good deal." Con-
sidering Andresen's statements as being a competent ex-
pert's opinion, they relied upon them and did not pur-
chase owner's title insurance at this time. Thereupon,
George Young paid to Andresen the sum of $7,000.00
and George Young and Audrey E. Young, on behalf of
Young Contracting Company, Inc., executed a $5,000.00
promissory note (a copy of which is attached hereto and
made a part hereof as Exhibit #3) to the contract seller,
secured by a deed of trust (a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part herof as Exhibit #4), thereby
totaling a sales price of $12,000.00 which was called for
by the sales contract for 13T dated June 19, 1972 (a
copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof
A.100
as Exhibit #5). Your affiants here note that on October
25, 1972 S/I Lawrence interviewed Raffaele Antonelli
who produced what he termed to be all the papers he
and his partner, Rocco Caniglia, possessed concerning
their purchase and sale of 13T and he produced only a
partially executed copy of what allegedly was his and his
partner's contract with Mount Vernon Development Cor-
poration for the sale of 13T (attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit #6).
Additionally, the aforesaid sales contract dated June
19, 1972 provided for the ‘Broker to accept [the] deed
of trust and note for commission and pay $3,000.00 cash
to seller for endorsement thereof'’ and that ''The Seller
recognizes Kensington Associates Realty, Inc., as the
Agent(s) negotiating this contract’’, and agrees to pay a
brokerage fee as the commission has been defined; that
is, the $5,000.00 promissory note made by Young Con-
tracting Company, Inc. was to be assigned to the broker
upon payment of $3,000.00, so that there resulted a
$2,000.00 commission. The contract was signed Peter
Andresen, Broker or Sales Manager. The stock ledger
sheets of Kensington Associates Realty, Inc. in your affi-
ants’ possession indicate that as of the end of September,
1972 a total of 100 shares of Kensington Associates Realty,
Inc., were issued and they are owned by Peter Andresen.
The stock ledger sheets of Mount Vernon Development
Corporation — the contract seller of 13T and signitory
to the sales contract of June 19, 1972 — in your affiants'
possession, indicate that as of the end of September, 1972
a total of 100 shares of Mount Vernon Development Cor-
poration were issued and they are held by ‘Peter C. An-
dresen, attorney Trustee for owners'’ with no explanation
in the minute book (as of the end of September, 1972),
A.101
which is also in your affiants' possession, as to the iden-
tity of the alleged ''owner'’ for whom Andresen is hold-
ing the shares in trust. In the cases of both Kensington
Associates Realty, Inc. and Mount Vernon Development
Corporation, the shares held by Peter C. Andresen are
the total number of shares which have been issued. The
latest Articles of Incorporation of Mount Vernon Develop-
ment Corporation, which describe its business as that of
real estate construction and financing, dated April 26,
1967, and which are presently on file with the Clerk of
the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and which
have been read by your affiants, indicate that Peter C.
Andresen is an incorporator, resident agent and director
of Mount Vernon Development Corporation, and that
“the directors [who] shall act until the first annual meet-
ing or until their successors are duly chosen and qualfied
***'' The minute book (as of the end of September,
1972), which is in your affiants' possession, indicates no
meetings or proceedings, as is required by Maryland law,
of Mount Vernon Development Corporation have ever
transpired. On March 13, 1972, Ira Burdette, who de-
scribed himself as a general superintendant for Andresen's
real estate construction businesses, told your affiants that
"Andresen was the owner of all the corporations" and Ira
Burdette mentioned that Mount Vernon Development Cor-
poration was one of them. In early September, 1972
John Sivers, who described himself as the president of
the mother corporation which Andresen in fact "owned"
and operated for his own benefit, also stated that Andre-
sen in fact '‘owned'’ and controlled Mount Vernon Devel-
opment Corporation for Andresen's own personal gain.
In addition to the $2,000.00 broker's commission An-
dresen received, George Young and Audrey E. Young relate
‘
A.102
that they paid Andresen $50.00 for the settlement of
the sale of 13T of the monies of the Standard-Young
Associates Joint Venture, and this is evidenced by the
buyer's settlement sheet for 13T which is in your affiants’
possession. Furthermore, your affiants have spoken to
various representatives, including Robert Freedman, gen-
eral counsel and a director, of Standard Savings and Loan
Association of Gaithersburg, and your affiants have thereby
been informed that Andresen has represented George Young
and Audrey E. Young in their business matters for several
years, that Andresen mostly, if now always, handled the
property purchase settlements and the various Standard
Savings and Loan construction loan settlements for Young
Contracting Company, Inc. and Steven Development Cor-
poration and that Andresen was aware of the Standard-
Young Associates Joint Venture from its inception since,
among other reasons, Andresen prepared the Articles of
Incorporation for Young Contracting Company, Inc., and
that Standard Savings and Loan Association of Gaithers-
burg would have the Standard-Young Associates Joint Ven-
ture construction loans settled with the attorney of
George Young's choosing. George Young related to 5S/I
Moyer this same information concerning Andresen being
their legal counsel regarding business and settlement mat-
ters and that Andresen actually knew of the Standard-
Young Associates Joint Venture and that 13T was such
a joint venture because George Young had told him prior
to the 13T transaction. Therefore, your affiants conclude
that by selling 13T to Young Contracting Company, Inc.
for purposes of a Standard-Young Associates Joint Venture,
with Standard Savings and Loan Association of Gaithers-
burg giving the construction loan, that Andresen would
obtain the fees for the settlement of that construction
loan.
A.103
George Young and Audrey E. Young related to S/I
Moyer that on or about July 18, 1972 Andresen did in
fact settle the $52,000.00 construction loan from Standard
Savings and Loan Association of Gaithersburg to Young
Contracting Company, Inc. for construction of a residence
on 13T, and that they paid Andresen a settlement fee
for conveying the property for the assoc. Standard Sav-
ings and Loan Association of Gaithersburg was issued an
executed mortgagee’s title insurance policy by the Title
Insurance Company of Minnesota (hereafter referred to
as TIM), which is in the possession of your affiants, based
upon the report and certification of title prepared and
signed by Peter Andresen and dated as certified to July
19, 1972 at 10:10 A.M., which is in the possession of
your affiants, in consideration of a $145.00 premium
paid by the Association according to George Young and
Audrey E. Young who conveyed the $145.00 to Andre-
sen. Andresen, as sub-agent for TIM, the record of An-
dresen's being appointed sub-agent being in your affiants
possession, received $32.25 or more in commissions for
issuing this mortgagee's title insurance policy, according
to the representations and records, which are in your
affiants' possession, of Frank W. Marsalek, Executive Vice
President of Shenandoah Land Title Corporation, who rep-
resents that he is the Maryland agency for TIM, and
which TIM in turn confirms. Andresen's final report
and certification of 13T which Frank W. Marsalek relates
caused him to issue the mortgagee's title insurance policy
represents that no mortgages or deeds of trust were at
that time outstanding against 13T. In fact, a review of
the pertinent land records of Montgomery County by
Deborah Nalls (described hereinafter) indicates to your
affiants that the following notes secured by recorded deeds
of trust were existing encumbrances at that time: (a) a
A.104
deed of trust securing a note at liber 3773, folio 598 (a
copy attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit
#7), recorded on August 2, 1968 against 13T and other
lots, from Clark-King Construction Company, Inc. to
Peter C. Andresen and William H. Matthews, trustees,
securing State National Bank of Bethesda for $31,000
(hereinafter referred to as State National D/T) and which
has never been paid as to 13T and which was not released
as to 13T until October 3, 1972, in liber 4281, folio 589
(a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit #8) according to Bruce E. Covert,
Senior Vice President of State National Bank of Bethesda
on October 26, 1972; and (b) a deed of trust securing
a note at liber 3797, folio 799 (a copy of which is at-
tached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit #9),
recorded on October 9, 1968 against 13T and other lots,
from Clark-King Construction Company, Inc. to James
Salter III and Owen M. Taylor, trustees, securing Arthur
Dale Lumsden (assigned to Madison National Bank, June
4, 1971) for $24,000 (hereinafter referred to as Madison
D/T), and which has never been paid nor released accord-
ing to Norman Hecht, Vice President of Madison National
Bank on October 27, 1972, and both of which have been
confirmed by a diligent examination of the land records
of Montgomery County by Deborah Nalls, Investigator/
Research Assistant for the Bi-County Major Frauds Unit
who for several years was employed by a law firm in
Montgomery County for the purpose of searching land
titles.
Robert Freedman of Standard Savings and Loan Asso-
ciation of Gaithersburg related to your affiants during
October, 1972 that Standard Savings and Loan Association
had given the $52,000 Maryland construction loans on 13T
A.105
in reliance upon the TIM mortgagee's title “ surance pol-
icy which stated that Standard Savings and Loan's con-
struction loan was in fact a first deed of trust as is re-
quired by Maryland law to be given by a Savings and
Loan Association. George Young represented to S/I
Moyer that as of October 25, 1972 Standard-Young As-
sociates had ceased building the residence of 13T pending
threatened foreclosures pursuant to the State National
D/T and the Madison D/T and had incurred !osses involv-
ing $23,064.50 invested in the project.
George Young and Audrey E. Young related to S/I
Moyer that on or about September 13, 1972 George
Young learned from Standard Savings and Loan Associa-
tion who in turn had learned from Madison National
Bank, that Madison National Bank held a senior unpaid,
unreleased deed of trust on 13T, namely, the Madison
D/T. George Young stated that on that date he went
to Andresen's law offices and inquired of him as to the
status of title on 13T, and Andresen acknowledged the -
existence and non-payment of the State National D/T and
the Madison D/T. George Young further related that he
demanded an owner's title insurance policy on 13T and
Andresen assented. Young Contracting Company, Inc.
paid Andresen the premium and Young Contracting Com-
pany, Inc. (the Joint Venture titled 13T in that name)
was issued an executed owner's title insurance policy by
TIM, which is in the possession of your affiants, based
upon the report and certification of title prepared and
signed by Peter Andresen and dated as certified to July
19, 1972 at 10:10 a.m., a copy of which is in your af-
fiants’ possession. Andresen, as sub-agent for TIM, re-
ceived no less that $11.50 in commission for issuing this
owner's title insurance policy, according to the represen-
tations and records of Frank W. Marsalek, which are in your
A.106
affiants' possession. Andresen's final report and certifica-
tion of 13T, which Frank W. Marsalek relates caused him
to issue the owner's title insurance policy, represents that
no mortgages of deeds of trust were at that time out-
standing against 13T, except the aforementioned construc-
tion loan and the aforementioned deed of trust from Young
Contracting Company, Inc. to Mount Vernon Develop-
ment Corporation securing the aforementioned note for
$5,000.00. In fact, the State National D/T and the Madi-
son D/T were senior encumbrances and security for the
unpaid notes.
Your affiant, S/I Joseph L. Lawrence, based upon his
seven years of training and experience as a law enforce-
ment officer and investigator, and based upon special
training and experience he has received during the past
22 months investigating consumer and commercial frauds
under the guidance, supervision, and tutelage of Jeffrey
Russell Werner, an Assistant State's Attorney for Mont-
gomery County for the past 40 months, who has received
specialized training and education in the field of white
collar fraud crimes, and whose duties as Director of the
Bi-County Major Frauds Unit for the past six months
have been confined exclusively to the investigation and
prosecution of white collar frauds and especially the crime
of false pretenses, has particular expertise as to the ele-
ments of the crime of false pretenses and the type and
kind of evidence necessary to prove the crime of false
pretenses.
Your affiant, S/I Austin A. Moyer, based upon his 22
years of training and experience as a law enforcement
officer and investigator and based upon special training
and experience he has received during the seven years
A.107
prior to May |, 1972 with the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment of the District of Columbia and the Major Frauds
Unit of the United States Attorney's Office for the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and since May 1, 1972 with the Bi-
County Major Frauds Unit investigating consumer and
commercial frauds under the guidance, supervision, and
tutelage of Jeffrey Russell Werner, has particular expertise
as to the elements of the crime of false pretenses and the
type and kind of evidence necessary to prove the crime
of false pretenses.
Your affiants related that they know that the crime
of false pretenses in the State of Maryland is committed
when a person (1) by making a false representation of a
past or existing fact; (2) with intent to defraud; (3) with
knowledge of its falsity; (4) obtains any chattel, money
or valuable security from another; (5) who relies upon
the false representation; (6) to his detriment.
Based upon the aforementioned partial description of
your affiants' experience and training, and based upon
the information which they pooled as the result of their
conduct of this investigation, your affiants aver that there
is probable cause to believe that at least four crimes of
false pretenses have been committed and which have been
described, wherein the victims are Young Contracting Com-
pany, Inc. and Standard Investment Corporation as the
Standard-Young Associates Joint Venture in the purchase
of 13T; Standard Savings and Loan Association of Gaithers-
burg as the lender of the 13T construction funds; TIM
as the insuror of the 13T mortgagee's title insurance
policy; and TIM as the insuror of the 13T owner's title
insurance policy.
WHEREFORE, your affiants pray that a search and
seizure warrant be issued authorizing them, together with
A.108
the necessary assistance, to enter the captioned premises
and to search all desks, cabinets, closets, safes and other
items and places within the captioned premises, where
the following items may be concealed that directly pertain
to the sale and conveyance of 13T from Raffael Antonelli
and Rocco Caniglia to Mount Vernon Development Cor-
poration to Young Contracting Company, Inc.:
1. Any and all title notes, title abstracts, and title
rundowns.
2. Any and all fully executed contracts of sale and/or
assignments from Raffaele Antonelli and Rocco Caniglia
to Mount Vernon Development Corporation and/or others.
3. Any and all lien pay-off correspondence and lien
pay-off memoranda to and from lienholders and note-
holders.
4. Any and all correspondence and memoranda to and
from trustees of deeds of trust.
5. Any and all lender's instructions for a construction
loan or construction permanent loan.
6. Any and all disbursement sheets and disbursement
memoranda.
7. Any and all checks, check stubs and ledger sheets
indicating disbursements upon settlement.
8. Any and all correspondence and memoranda con-
cerning disbursements upon settlement.
9. Any and all! settlement statements and settlement
memoranda.
A.109
10. Any and all fully or partially prepared deed of
trust releases, whether or not executed and whether or
not recorded.
11. Any and all other books, records, documents, pa-
pers, memoranda, and correspondence, showing or tending
to show a fraudulent intent and/or knowledge as elements
of the aforementioned four false pretenses crimes.
Furthermore, the aforementioned recorded State Na-
tional D/T and recorded Madison D/T (copies of which
are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibits
#7 and #9), reveal that in addition to 13T, numerous
other lots located in Section 10 and other sections of the
aforementioned Potomac Woods are or were held as secur-
ity for those two deeds of trust, and the aforesaid diligent
search of the land records by Deborah Nalls indicates that
as of October, 1972 there existed among the land records
no documents indicating a substitution or change of those
lots held as security for those deeds of trust. Exhibits
#7 and #9 also indicate that the equitable titleholder
of those lots formerly or presently held as security
for the State National D/T and Madison D/T (including
13T) was Clark-King Construction Company, Inc., and
the aforesaid diligent search of the land records by Deb-
orah Nalls indicates that as of October, 1972 said equitable
title remains in Clark-King Construction Company, Inc. un-
less sold and conveyed to a home buyer or the home
buyer's permanent financer, the latter being the case as
to most, but not all, of the said lots. According to
Bruce E. Covert and Norman Hecht, the notes secured
by the State National D/T and the Madison D/T, respec-
tively, have been paid in part and partial releases of the
respective deeds of trust have been signed as authorized
A.110
to be released by them or by their agent; copies of
their records which are in your affiants' possession
confirm each of their statements and indicate that
they have each been the person in charge of the mak-
ing and payment of the respective notes for their banks.
On October, 19, 1972 S/I Moyer interviewed William Han-
cock and E. Harold Patterson who related that they owned
County-Wide Realty Company, Inc. and that their corpora-
tion had an exclusive brokerage on the Potomac Woods
lots on which Clark-King Construction Company, Inc. held
the equitable title and was the builder of residential houses
thereon. They related that Andresen has settled most, if
not all, of these homes and that he is to settle the home
on lot 16, block S, Potomac Woods "within the next few
weeks or so." On October 19, 1972 S/I Lawrence inter-
viewed Peter Hitchen, who represented himself to be the
Comptroller of the F. O. Day Company, Inc., and who
produced various records which are in your affiants’ pos-
session and which indicate to your affiants that he in fact
is the Comptroller of the F.O. Day Company, Inc., who
related that Clark-King Construction Company, Inc. is
indebted to F. O. Day Company, Inc. in the form of an
unpaid note secured by a deed of trust from Clark-King
Construction Company, Inc. to Peter C. Andresen and
William C. Wheeler, trustees, securing F. O. Day Company,
Inc. for $37,000.00 and which is recorded at liber 3934,
folio 772 (a copy of which is attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit #10). Peter Hitchen further re-
lated that Andresen prepared and signed his signature to
a handwritten statement, a copy of which your affiants
have in their possession, dated September 26, 1972 and
which refers to and pertains to lot 16, block S, Potomac
Woods, stating among other things that, ''Said lot to be
sold in approximately 40 days from date."
A.111
On October 19, 1972 S/I Lawrence interviewed Melvin
L. Clark, Jr., who identified himself as President of Clark-
King Construction Company, Inc., and whose corporate
books and records, which are in your affiants’ possession,
confirm this, related that Peter Andresen had been the
settlement attorney for himself as seller, and for the
buyer, for most, if not all, of the numerous homes he
has built on the lots Clark-King Construction Company,
Inc. owns or owned before conveyance to the home buyer,
in Potomac Woods.
Therefore, based upon the aforementioned partial de-
scription of your affiants’ experience and training, and
based upon the information which they pooled as the re-
sult of their conduct of this investigation, your affiants
further aver that there is probable cause to believe that
there exists within the confines of the captioned premises
books, records, documents, papers, memoranda, and cor-
respondence, which are, include and pertain to, title notes,
title abstracts, and title rundowns; lein pay-off figures and
amounts to and from lienholders and notcholders; corres-
pondence and memoranda to and from trustees of deeds
of trust; lender's instructions for construction loans and/
or construction and permanent loans; disbursements from
settlement; deed of trust releases; title insurance binders
and policies; and other items connected therewith; which
were prepared for, in preparation of, in furtherance of,
and in discharge of Andresen's settlements and convey-
ances of those lots which were and are the subject of the
security of the State National D/T and the Madison D/T
(copies of which are attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibits #7 and #9). Your affiants reasonably
conclude that these books, records, documents, papers,
memoranda and correspondence last mentioned, do indicate
A.112
that Peter Andresen, as settlement attorney for the last
mentioned lots, did and does have actual knowledge of
the status and amounts oweing on the notes secured by
the State National D/T and Madison D/T, before, during
and after the aforementioned settlements of 131, and
which evidence, when taken together with other evidence
previously outlined does indicate and will show the ele-
ments of fraudulent intent and knowledge in the previously
mentioned four false pretenses crimes concerning 1|3T.
WHEREFORE, your affiants further pray that the search
and seizure warrant be issued authorizing them, together
with the necessary assistance, to enter the captioned prem-
ises and to search all desks, cabinets, closets, safes and
other items and places within the captioned premises,
where the following items may be concealed that pertain
to the sale and conveyance of the last mentioned lots that
are the subject of the State National D/T and Madison
D/T.
12. Any and all books, records, documents, papers,
memoranda, and correspondence, which are, include and
pertain to, title notes, title abstracts, and title rundowns,
lien pay-off figures and amounts to and from leinholders
and noteholders, correspondence and memoranda to and
from trustees of deeds of trust; lender's instructions for
construction loans and/or construction and permanent
loans; disbursements from settlement; deed of trust re-
leases; title insurance binders and policies; and other items
connected therewith; which were prepared for, in preparation
of, in furtherance of, and in discharge of Peter Andresen's
settlements and conveyances of those lots which were and
are the subject of the State National D/T and the Madison
D/T (copies of which are attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibits #6 and #9).
A.113 A 114
{dated October 30, 1972]
And respectfully request that the attached Search War-
rant issue forthwith. EXCERPTS FROM SEARCH WARRANT
STATE OF MARYLAND
/s/ Joseph L. Lawrence, /s/ Austin A. Moyer,
vs
Joseph L. Lawrence, Affian: Austin A. Moyer, Affiant
Special Investigator; Bi-County Special Investigator; Bi-County pet tema poe mci beggin
Major Frauds Unit of the Major Frauds Unit of the |
BUILDING CONTAINING A NUMBER OF VARIOUS OFFICES
KNOWN AS 3514 PLYERS MILL ROAD, WITH NUMERALS
3514 SHOWN TO THE LEFT OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE
WAY OF A TWO STORY, WHITE MASONARY BUILDING
AND A PARTICULAR ONE ROOM OFFICE WITHIN SAID
OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE BASEMENT
FLOOR WITH FIVE STEPS LEADING DOWN TO AN
UNMARKED BLACK DOOR, SAME BEING THE ONLY
ENTRANCE FACING THE REAR OF SAID OFFICE
Montgomery County and Prince Montgomery County and Prince
George’s County State’s Attorneys’ George’s County State’s Attorneys’
Offices Offices
Sworn to before me, and subscribed in my presence
this 30th day of October, 1972.
/s/_signature illegible BUILDING ENCLOSED BY A WROUGHT IRON RAIL-
Judge of the Sixth Judicial Cir- ING, ALL OF WHICH IS LOCATED IN KENSINGTON,
cuit MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Montgomery County, Maryland STATE OF MARYLAND
MONTGOMERY COUNTY:
TO: Kenneth W. Watkins, Superintendant of the Depart-
ment of Police, Montgomery County, Maryland, or any
other person authorized or whose assistant is requested or
is needed. Greetings:
Whereas an affidavit having been made before me by
Special Investigators Austin A. Moyer and Joseph L. Law-
rence of the Bi-County Major Frauds Unit of the Mont-
gomery County and Prince George's County State's Attor-
neys Offices, that they have probable cause to believe
that on the premises known as Mount Vernon Develop-
ment Corporation, a particular building containing a num-
ber of various offices known as 3514 Plyers Mill Road, with
A. 115
numerals 3514 shown to the left of the main entrance
way of a two story, white masonary building and a parti-
cular one room office within said office building located
on the basement floor with five steps leading down to an
unmarked black door, same being the only entrance facing
the rear of said office building enclosed by a wrought iron
railing, all of which is located in Kensington, Montgomery
County, Maryland there are now concealed said premises
the following items pertaining to sale, purchase, settle-
ment, and conveyance of lot 13, Block T, Potomac Woods
subdivision, Montgomery County, Maryland:
* * *
(The balance of this warrant is identical to the Search
Warrant pertaining to 3700 Decatur Avenue)
{dated October 30, 1972]
STATE OF MARYLAND
VS
THE PREMISES KNOWN AS MOUNT VERNON
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A PARTICULAR
BUILDING CONTAINING A NUMBER OF VARIOUS
OFFICES KNOWN AS 3514 PLYERS MILL ROAD,
WITH NUMERALS 3514 SHOWN TO THE LEFT OF
THE MAIN ENTRANCE WAY OF A TWO STORY,
WHITE MASONARY BUILDING AND A PARTICULAR
ONE ROOM OFFICE WITHIN SAID OFFICE BUILDING
LOCATED ON THE BASEMENT FLOOR WITH FIVE
STEPS LEADING DOWN TO AN UNMARKED BLACK
DOOR, SAME BEING THE ONLY ENTRANCE FACING
THE REAR OF SAID OFFICE BUILDING ENCLOSED
BY A WROUGHT IRON RAILING, ALL OF WHICH
IS LOCATED IN KENSINGTON, MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, MARYLAND
A 116
EXCERPTS FROM
APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR A
SEARCH WARRANT
TO: The Honorable Judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit
Court of Maryland
Application is herewith made for a Search and Seizure
Warrant in that there is probable cause to believe that the
laws relating to False Pretense, as defined in Article 27,
Section 140 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957
Edition as amended and revised are being violated upon
the following premises known as Mount Vernon Develop-
ment Corporation, a particular building containing a num-
ber of various offices known as 3514 Plyers Mill Road,
with numerials 3514 shown to the left of the main en-
trance way of a two story, white masonary building and
a particular one room office within said office building
located on the basement floor with five steps leading down
to an unmarked black door, same being the only entrance
facing the rear of said office building enclosed by a wrought
iron railing, all of which is located in Kensington, Mont-
gomery County, Maryland.
* * *
(This portion of the application is identical to that per-
taining to 3700 Decatur Avenue)
* * + ;
Furthermore, your affiants relate that on or about Sep-
tember 26, 1972 S/I Moyer had occassioned to be present
in the captioned premises at 3514 Plyer's Mill Road, Ken-
sington, Maryland and there observed Charles G. Bieber
seated at the second desk from the entrance and from
the conversation overhead, he apparently was conducting
business over the telephone. S/I Moyer thereupon con-
versed with Charles G. Bieber on and about the premises
A 117
and he related that the premises were being used as his
business location. Charles G. Bieber appears as Mount
Vernon Development Corporations’ signatory for the sales
contract for 13T between Mount Vernon Development Cor-
poration and, purportedly, with Raffaele Antonelli and
Rocco Caniglia (a copy attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit #6), signing as purchaser. That sales
contract states the address of the purchaser to be ''3514
Plyers Mill Road., Kensington, Maryland.'' Charles G.
Bieber also signed the sales contract between Steven Devel-
opment Corporation (ultimately the property was titled in
the name of Young Contracting Company, Inc.) and Mount
Vernon Development Corporation, as the representative of
Mount Vernon Development Corporation, (a copy attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit #5).
On October 29, 1972 and on a previous occassion S/I
Moyer spoke with June Stup who related that until Sep-
tember, 1972 she was employed as a typist in the afore-
said law offices of Peter Andresen. She stated that she
was aware that Charles G. Bieber was associated with
Mount Vernon Development Corporation, possibly as its
treasurer, and that she learned this as a result of, first,
inter-office discussions conducted in her presence with
reference to Mr. Bieber's position with Mount Vernon De-
velopment Corporation; second, as the result of calling Mr.
Bieber at phone number 949-1090 on matters relating to
Mount Vernon Development Corporation; third, knowledge
that phone number 949-1090 is located at 3514 Plyers
Mill Road, Kensington, Maryland.
On October 13, 1972 S/I Moyer spoke to Carl Zentz
who represented that since September, 1969 until present
he has been employed by Peter Andresen as title searcher,
A. 118
and more recently, as supervisor of all title searchers em-
ployed by Peter Andresen, and that he is intimately famil-
iar with the title notes, title abstracts, and title rundowns
prepared for Peter Andresen, and that they are normally
and typically kept in Peter Andresen's aforesaid law of-
fices and also in the aforesaid 3514 Plyer's Mill Road,
Kensington, Maryland.
=
* *
(The balance of this affidavit is identical to that pertaining
to 3700 Decatur Avenue).
A 119
REPORT AND RETURN
I received the attached search warrant on the 30th day
of October, 1972 and have executed it as follows:
On the 3lst day of October, 1972, at 11:00 o’clock
A.M. I searched the premises described in the warrant.
The following is an inventory of property taken pursuant
to the warrant:
1. File labeled ‘‘Antonelli to Mount Vernon to Young
Contracting Company 72-242” containing settlement sheets,
deeds of trust, correspondence, and other paraphernalia
concerning settlement of lot 13, block T, Potomac Woods.
2. Stock certificate for Charles Holding Corporation,
3. Stock certificate for Revis Engineering Corporation.
4. File labeled “Clark-King to Holtzclaw 70-307 7(t)
P.W.” containing settlement sheets, deeds of trust, corres
pondence and other paraphernalia concerning settlement of
lot 7, block T, Potomac Woods.
5. File labeled “Standard to Stonestreet J.V. 70-305”
containing settlement sheets, title insurance binders and other
paraphernalia concerning settlement of lots 1 and 2, block
1, Rockville, Park.
6. File labeled “‘Title Co. Correspondence” containing
correspondence of title companies. ,
7. File labeled “Clark-King to Antonelli 69-351 13(t)”
containing settlement sheets, correspondence, and other para-
phernalia concerning settlement of 13T.
8. Deed of trust filed at Liber 4210, folio 847 from
OY 0 we + —
A 120
Clark-King Construction Company, Inc. to F.O. Day, Inc.
9. File labeled “James A. Federline Inc. to Clark-King
Construction Co. 72-135” containing deed of trust, cor-
respondence, settlement sheets and other settlement para-
phernalia,
10. Handwritten note from Peter Andresen to F.O.
Day Co., Inc. dated September 26, 1972.
11. Letter from Mary A. Garner to Revis Engineering
Corporation dated September 27, 1972.
12. Letter from E. Harold Patterson to Peter Andre-
sen, Esquire dated October 13, 1972.
13. File labeled “Equitable to Clark-King (Ground
Trust) 67-354” containing deed of trust settlement sheets,
and other settlement paraphernalia.
14, File labeled “Clark-King to Chepuras (2 (11) MCA
PK) 71-409” containing settlement sheets correspondence,
and other settlement paraphernalia.
15. File labeled “‘Clark-King to Lyons 70-166” contain-
ing settlement sheets, insurance binders, and other settle-
ment paraphernalia.
16. File labeled “Enterprise to Clark-King 69-328 6-8
(T) P.W.”’ containing settlement sheets, insurance binders,
and other settlement paraphernalia.
17. File labeled ‘‘Federline to Clark-King 70-180" con-
taining ““Deed of Trust,’ deed of trust note, and other set-
tlement paraphernalia.
18. File labeled “Pinehurst to Clark-King 71-454” con-
A 121
taining deed of trust, settlement sheet and other settle
ment paraphernalia.
19. File labeled “Pinehurst to Clark-King 70-129”’’ con-
taining settlement sheet, deed of trust release and other
settlement paraphernalia.
20. Ledger sheet showing $2,000.00 balance.
21. File labeled “‘Clark-King to Clark 67-311” contain-
ing settlement sheets, contract, correspondence, and other
settlement paraphernalia,
22. Check stubs from and including 7616 to 7859.
23. Three (3) Columnar Pads showing various figures.
24. Grantor list of Clark Construction Company, Inc.
25. Title Abstracts of Potomac Woods subdivision.
26. Letter from Dores Chepuras dated October 6, 1972.
27. File labeled “‘State N B to Clark 68-281” contain-
ing Deed of trust correspondence, and other settlement
paraphernalia.
28. File marked “‘Elic to Clark-King 69-128, 11, 12,
13(s)”” containing subordination agreement correspondence
and other settlement paraphernea'ia.
29. File labeled “‘Pinehurst to Clark-King, 71-454’ con-
taining settlement sheets, title binder and other settlement
paraphernalia,
This inventory was made in the presence of Peter C.
Andresen and Lori Hall. I swear that this inventory is a
true and detailed account of all the property taken by me
oe enone
A. 122
on the warrant.
/s/ John * * * /s/ Joseph L. Lawrence
Subscribed and sworn to and returned before me this 3rd
day of November, 1972.
/s/ DAVID L. CAHOON
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
FOR MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, MARYLAND
REPORT AND RETURN
I received the attached search warrant on the 30th day
of October, 1972 and have executed it as follows:
On the 3list day of October, 1972, at 11:00 o’clock
A.M. I searched the premises described in the warrant.
The following is an inventory of property taken pursuant
to the warrant:
1. Blue “Phone-O-Grams Book’’ with a 7-13 phone call
directed to “‘Charlie” from Mrs. Antonelli.
2. Blue Long Distance Telephone Log with “Frank
Marsalek 293-4190” as one of the numbers listed.
3. “Promissory Note”, attached to paper by clip Pete-
from-Charlie.
4. Three (3) imprints of Corporate Seals ‘‘Second
Chance’’, “Guarantee Maintenance” and ‘Associated Mort-
”
gage .
5. Desk Calendars from October back through April
A 123
1972, October 6th notation “Nat. Bank of Washington’’.
6. Folder captioned “Jones View — Lots 6 & 10 —
Block B”’ containing note from trustees that Guaranteed
Maintenance purchased same.
7. Folder captioned “Person VS Sivers and Panda’’ con-
taining a letter dated July 17, 1972.
8. Folder captioned “31 Acres (Manassas)’’ containing
a letter dated June 22, 1972, to Bieber-Canadian.
9. Brown spiral note book “‘Chas. Bieber’’ containing
contracts “‘Revis”’.
10. Folder captioned ‘7804 Garland Ave’”’ containing
letter dated August 23, 1972 to Bieber “‘Chas Holding
”
Corp”.
11. Folder captioned “Glen Ecco Heights” containing
a message directed to Mr. Sampson and Charlie.
12. Folder captioned “‘Catalogs’”’ containing contract
for Mount Vernon Development Corporation.
13. Folder captioned “Misc. Bills - Beach” containing
bill for Revis dated 9/28/72.
14. Three (3) Checks Gude Industrial Development
Corporation XXX All aforementioned items are contained
in Green folder marked “‘A”’.
15. Folder captioned ‘“‘Don Wolf” containing a counter
check drawn on Revis prior to September 26, 1972.
16. Folder captioned ‘“‘Unpd bills A-Z Mass. Ave.” con-
taining bills for Revis and Canadian, prior to Septernber
A. 124
26, 1972.
17. Folder captioned “‘unpd bills A-Z Mass Ave.” con-
taining bills for Revis and Canadian, prior to September 26,
1972.
18. Folder captioned “unpd bills A-Z Alabama Ave
S.E.” containing bills for Canadian prior to September 26,
1972,
19, Folder captioned “Unpd bills Sea Isl.’’ containing
bills for Canadian prior to September 26, 1972.
20. Folder captioned “‘Unpd bills A-Z Williams’’ con-
taining bills prior to September 26, 1972.
21. Folder captioned “Unpd bills - delivery Tickets
Kemp Mill” containing bills for Canadian prior to Septem-
ber 26, 1972.
22. Folder captioned “Unpd bills Wheaton Lane A-Z”’
containing unpd bills for Canadian prior to September 26,
1972.
23. Folder captioned “Unpd bills 1104 Congress St.
SE containing bills for Canadian prior to September 26,
1972.
24. Folder captioned “Unpd bills McComas Properties”
containing bills for Revis prior to September 26, 1972.
25. Folder captioned “‘Unpd bills A-Z Gude Ind, Dev.”
containing bill for Gude prior to September 26, 1972.
26. Folder captioned ‘“‘Unpd bills Gosport Ct” contain-
ing bills for Canadian Prior to September 26, 1972.
27. Folder captioned “Unpd bills Franklin Dr.’’ con-
A. 125
taining bills for Canadian prior to September 26, 1972.
28. Folder captioned “15Th St’ containing bills for
Canadian prior to September 26, 1972.
29. Envelope containing tax bills for Revis dated prior
to September 26, 1972.
30. A quantity of Devlin Lumber bills for Canadian
prior to September 26, 1972.
31. Resolution Corp. Account Madison Apple Grove
with Sivers, Sampson and Breen.
32. Two letters to Apple Grove from Canadian Re:
Loan prior to September 26, 1972.
33. Revis Engineering counter check prior to Septem-
ber 26, 1972.
34. Letter from Security National Bank to Revis note
payment due prior to September 26, 1972.
35. Quantity of bills from Charles County to Jones
View prior to September 26, 1972.
36. Quantity of Tax bills Charles County to Jones
View prior to September 26, 1972.
37. Quantity of checks Canadian prior to September
27, 1972 State National Bank (all the above items lined
in folder marked 30 thru 37).
All the above items taken from the third desk in office
and are contained in green file folder “B’’.
38. Folder file captioned “Unpd bills Westchester Es-
tates” containing bills for Revis prior to September 26, 1972.
A 126
39. File folder captioned “Unpd bills General Acct.”
containing bills for Canadian prior to September 26, 1972.
40. One brown book captioned ‘Westchester Estate
acct. Payable” prior to September 26, 1972.
All the above items taken from the third desk and
maintained in their own state
41. Folder captioned “Apple Grove Development Corp.”
containing papers dated prior to September 26, 1972.
42. Folder captioned “South Georgetown Corp.” con-
taining Instructions on how to form a corporation.
43. Folder captioned “Mount Vernon Development Cor-
poration” with items prior to September 26, 1972.
All the above taken from Ist desk, packaged by rubber
band and Marked “C’’.
44. Folder captioned “Potomac Woods A” containing:
original Deeds of Trust, subordination agreement, releases,
title rundowns, work sheets, title Insurance policies and
waivers of liens, settlement sheets and associated papers all
involving Clark-King Construction Co.
45. Folder captioned “Potomac Woods B”’ containing
initially the same material as above.
46. Folder captioned “‘Mel Clark” containing accounting
sheet listing Equitable-Lumsden etc. Deed of trust notes,
account sheets due, and owing, correspondence of Clark
King and Andresen, and associated papers.
47. Folder captioned ‘Westchester Estates General”
““Stonco” containing title work rundown sheets, deeds of
A 127 A. 128
easement, agreements, deeds and associated papers. e) folder captioned “Covenants”
48. Folder captioned “Westchester Estates General” f) renee General 7
“Revis Engineering Corporation” containing title reports, g) ” “Willowbrook General New
deeds, subordination agreements, easement reports, etc. ie ” “General File supplies”
49. Folder captioned ‘“‘Apple Grove General” contain- ) > ” ” “Title Searching Procedure”
ing title rundown sheets, deeds of easements, deeds of ~~ * ” “Bedfordshire General”
trusts, releases, mechanics Liens, title orders and associ- k) ” * “Chandon Woods General”
ated papers, -
A ” “College Gardens - General file
50. Folder captioned ‘McAuley Park General’ contain- m) ” * “Congressional Country Club
ing title reports, plat, and associated papers.
Gen”
All the above removed from four drawer file, top drawer | n) ” ” “Damazo corp. Judgements,
located in the rear of premises with large desk against same. | home etc”
All above enclosed in green case marked “D”’,
\o)
~
o ” “Foxlee Manor general”
S51. Folder captioned “Potomac Woods General’ con- | ie ” “Gredinger Subdivision”
taining title rundowns, work sheets, deeds of easement, | q) ” * “Hollywood Park General”
declaration of covenments, abstract reports, deeds of trust, | : -
title binders. ae ” “Jones View General
s 5 ” “Kemp Mill Estates General”
52. a) folder captioned “Gruver Grantor, D.C.” con- , 4 i"
taining Title report. — * “Montevideo Count General
b) folder captioned “Grantor Lists A-M Prince es " “Orchard Estates General
George’s Co.” containing title rundown reports in names ie ” “Potomac Common-Gen. file”’
A thru M. w) ” ” “Potomac Village General”
c) folder captioned “Grantor Lists N-Z Prince x) ” ” “Rosedale Estates General”’
oe . Co.”’ containing title rundown reports in names yy” °° aetien Cute Genseal”
XXX _ These following all contain abstract work and All from a four drawer cabinet in the rear of the
papers of Carl Zentz. meee
d) folder captioned ‘‘Kendale General” This inventory was made in the presence of H. Douglas
Rodier and Pvt. G.M. Costello MCPD I swear that this
A. 129
inventory is a true and detailed account of all the prop-
erty taken by me on the warrant.
Subscribed and sworn to and returned before me this
day of , 1972.
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
FOR MONTGOMERY
COUNTY, MARYLAND
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
STATE OF MARYLAND )
)
v. ) No.
)
PETER C. ANDRESEN )
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
Comes now the defendant, Peter C. Andresen, by his
attorney, David B. Lamb, and respectfully moves this
Honorable Court to suppress any and all evidence seized
by members of the Bi-County Fraud Unit and/or Mont-
gomery County Police Department from the premises
known as 3700 Decatur Street and 3514 Plyers Mill Road,
Montgomery County, Maryland on October 31, 1972.
As grounds for this motion defendant states as follows:
1. The search warrants for the aforementioned prem-
ises directed seizure of papers and files which were
A. 130
communicative and/or testimonial in nature. Such seizure
was in violation of the defendant’s 4th and Sth Amend-
ment Constitutional rights.
2. The officers and/or agents of the Bi-County Fraud
Unit exceeded the scope of the search warrant in that
substantial items were confiscated which did not relate to
lot 13-T which was the subject of the warrant.
WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests that this
Court suppress all evidence seized.
Respectfully submitted,
LAMB, EASTMAN & KEATS
by
DAVID B. LAMB
1742 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
785-4822
A 131
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
STATE OF MARYLAND )
v. No.
)
)
)
PETER C. ANDRESEN )
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
I. ALL EVIDENCE SEIZED SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED
BECAUSE THE SEIZURE VIOLATES DEFENDANT’S
Sth AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THUS RENDERING THE
SEIZURE UNREASONABLE WITHIN THE 4th
AMENDMENT.
The close interrelationship between the 4th and Sth
Amendments with regard to searches and seizures has long
been recognized by the Supreme Court. In Boyd vy, US,
116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524 (1886), the court fully dis-
cussed this relationship and declared itself
“unable to perceive that the seizure of a man’s
private books and papers to be used in evidence
against him is substantially different from compek
ling him to be a witness against himself’ p. 633
In Boyd the government obtained a court order to require
defendant to produce in court his private books for pur-
poses of review for the Internal Revenue Service. The
court held that this was an unconstitutional authorization
of authority, because defendant’s books were the subject
of mere evidence. Although the “mere evidence” rule of
A. 132
Boyd was later reversed in Warden v, Hayden, 387 U.S.
294, 87 S.Ct. 1647 (1967), the thread of the interrelation-
ship issue of the 4th and 5th Amendments remained good
law and continued to be woven in later decisions.
The issue again was raised in Gouled v, U.S., 255 U.S.
298, 41 S.Ct. 261 (1921). Again, Gouled was decided be-
fore Hayden. In Gouled a search warrant was issued, but
the court held that even with a search warrant the books
and papers of defendant were mere evidence of a crime
and could not be constitutionally searched and seized in
owner’s home or office. But, when the court addressed
itself to the issue of the possibility of admitting the private
papers obtained into evidence, it had this to say:
“It is the right and duty of the government to
secure evidence of a crime, even from the accused
himself, if this can be done without violating his
Constitutional rights” p. 301 (emphasis added)
“The admission of a paper so obtained in evi-
dence against and over the objection of the owner
when indicted for crime, compels him to be a
witness against himself, in violation of the 5th
Amendment.” p. 306.
In Marion v. U.S., 275 U.S, 192, 48 S.Ct. 74 (1927)
the police had obtained a warrant for liquor but, during
the course of their search, they discovered books and rec-
ords concerning the operation of an illegal liquor enter-
prise. In holding the seizure illegal, the Supreme Court
said:
“The requirement that warrants shall particularly
describe the things to be seized makes general
A 133
searches under them impossible and prevents the
seizure of one thing under a warrant describing
another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is
left to the discretion of the officer executing the
warrant.” p. 196
Although Hayden establishes the “mere evidence’’ rule
as being constitutionally permissive, it stil] left the inter-
twining issue open. The court stated that under Boyd
and Gould, the evidence was inadmissible as violative of
4th Amendment rights. Therefore, the 5th Amendment
problem was never met head on, The issue again was
raised in this case, but the court found that the items of
clothing introduced into evidence were not “testimonial”
or “communicative” in nature under Schmerber v. Cali-
fornia, 384 U.S. 757. But, if the items did pass the
Schmerber test (which the court on prior occasions has
so labeled as to books and papers as noted above) then
the question as to their introduction whereby forcing de
fendant to become a witness against himself must be an-
swered,
Justice Douglas in his dissent, addresses the issue head
on. p. 319
“Our question is whether the government, though
armed with a proper search warrant or though
making a search incident to an arrest, may seize,
and use at the trial, testimonial evidence, whether
it would otherwise be barred by the Sth Amend-
ment or would be free from such strictures. The
teaching of Boyd is that such evidence, though
seized pursuant to a lawful search, is inadmissi-
ble.”’
A 134
Hayden did not involve a search warrant and therefor at
no point was Marion discussed by the court. Moreover,
Marion was cited with approval in Berger v. New York,
388 U.S. 4158, 87 S.Ct. 1973, decided after Hayden, thus
making it quite clear, that the mere evidence rule applies
to the authorizational basis of the search warrant, and is
not a ticket for a general search which has been abhorred
since colonial days and barred by both the Federal and
State Constitutions.
As to date there are only two lower court decisions
addressing themselves to tiis issue. In both cases, cert
was denied by the Supreme Court.
The first case is a decision by the United States Court
of Appeals, Second Circuit. In U.S. v. Bennett, 409 F.2d
888 (1969) as the result of a search incident to an arrest,
the police seized a letter written to defendant as mere evi-
dence of a crime. The Court of Appeals kept the tradi-
tional label of a letter as being “testimonial” and affirmed
its admittance as being mere evidence. However, the letter
was not written by the defendant, but to him, thus in it-
self not being truely testimonial.
Hill v. Philpott, 445 F.2d 144 (7th Cir., 1971) held
that where production of taxpayer’s personal books and
records would have properly been refused on the basis of
a 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if
they had been sought by a subpoena in a summons, the
fact that they were seized pursuant to a valid search war-
rant did not preclude the taxpayer-defendant from claim-
ing a violation of his 5th Amendment rights. The court
states:
“In overruling Gouled as to its 4th Amendment
teachings, we do not believe that the court intended
A. 135
to in any way diminish the Sth Amendment char-
acteristics which might attach to certain items of
property such as personal books and records, In-
deed, the Sth Amendment holding of Gouled
which concluded that the documents there at is-
sue were protected appears still to be applicable,
as that aspect of the case was not mentioned in
the Warden opinion.”
Il. THE SEIZURE EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF
THE WARRANT.
While effecting the search the agents of the Bi-County
Fraud Unit seized numerous items of evidence which were
not mentioned in the warrant and accordingly they should
be suppressed by this Court. The most recent case dealing
with the scope of a seizure pursuant to a warrant is Hughes
v. State, 287 A.2d 299 (1972) wherein the court held that
the items which the police may reasonably seize under a
constitutionally valid warrant and search are not confined
to those specifically designated on the warrant if a nexus
exists between the item seized and criminal behavior. Such
nexus is automatically provided in the case of fruits and in-
strumentalities of a crime and contraband, but may exist
also as to mere evidence. Citing Warden v, Hayden supra,
Anglin v, State, 227 A.2d 364 (1967), Crawford v. State,
267 A.2d 317 (1970). In the instant case the items seized
were not instrumentalities or proceeds of a crime nor were
the agents in a position to know whether ‘he items consti-
tuted evidence of other criminal behavior.
Respectfully submitted,
LAMB, EASTMAN & KEATS
by DAVID B, LAMB
1742 N Street, N.W. Washington,
D.C. 20036 — 785-4822
~
A. 136
(filed April 19, 1973]
STATE OF MARYLAND, ) No. 3100, 3103 Crims.
Plaintiff, ) In the Circuit Court
vs ) for Frederick County
PETER CHRISTIAN ANDRE- )
SEN, )
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In the above-entitled cases, Peter C. Andresen, Esq.
(Andresen) has been indicted for the crimes of false pre-
tense, larceny after trust, fraudulent misappropriation by
a fiduciary, embezzlement, forgery, uttering, failure to
pay tax and recordation charge, and misrepresentation of
taxable consideration.
These charges stem from the activities of the defendant
while conducting his practice of law in connection with
certain acts involving real estate transactions, particularly
the settlement of Lot 13, Block T, Potomac Woods Sub-
division, Montgomery County, Maryland.
Prior to defendant's indictment, two search warrants
were issued, one to search the complex of offices and stores
known as 3700 Decatur Avenue, the law offices of Peter
Christian Andresen, and the other to search various offices
at 3514 Plyers Mill Road, both places located in Kensing-
ton, Montgomery County, Maryland. The Plyers Mill Road
address was the office of Mt. Vernon Development Cor-
poration, a corporation which is allegedly owned and oper-
ated by the defendant.
It is alleged in the application and affidavit that the
probable cause for searching the above premises was that
A 137
certain letters, books, documents, Papers, et cetera, were
concealed there pertaining to the sale, purchase, settlement
and conveyance of Lot 13, Block T, Potomac Woods Sub-
division, Montgomery County, Maryland, which would
show or tend to show a fraudulent intent and/or knowl-
edge as elements in the crime of false pretense, and fur-
ther provide for the seizure of other items that may be
the fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of other crimes,
at the time of the search unknown. As a result of the
two searches, numerous records, papers and documents,
et cetera, were obtained pertaining to Lot 13-T and num-
erous documents, papers, et cetera, which do not pertain
to Lot 13-T but are evidence, according to the State,
which would tend to prove plan, design or scheme.
Some of that evidence obtained as a result of the
present search warrant which did not pertain to Lot
13-T was used for the indictment in Cases Nos. 3101 and
3102 are not now before the Court.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence
seized from the above-mentioned premises, alleging:
(1) "The search of the aforementioned premises directed
seizure of papers and files which are communicative and/or
testimonial in nature. Such seizure was in violation of de-
fendant's Fourth and Fifth Ainendments Constitutional
rights.
(2) ‘The officers and/or agents of the Bi-County Fraud
Unit exceeded the scope of the search warrant in that sub-
stantial items were confiscated which did not relate to Lot
13-T, which was the subject of the warrant."
Lengthy hearings were held by the Court on the mo-
tion to suppress the evidence, at which time arguments of
oe ee ee ane
A. 138
counsel were heard and considered. The arguments of
the defendant will be considered in the order in which
they were made.
United States Constitution,
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitu-
tion provides, ''The right of the people to be secured in
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreason-
able search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no war-
rants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The defendant's contention is that the evidence obtained
as a result of the searches was in violation of the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, for that
there was not probable cause to confiscate those items
which did not relate to Lot 13-T, which was the main
subject of the application and affidavit for both search
warrants. The United States Supreme Court, prior to the
case of Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, had made a
distinction between instrumentalities of the alleged crime
as distinguished from mere evidence which might aid in a
particular apprehension or conviction. The Hayden case,
however, overruled this distinction and held that the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution was not vio-
lated by the seizure of "mere evidence" if there was proven
to be a nexus between the items seized and the criminal
behavior. This case held that "mere evidence'’ may be
seized if probable cause can be established that the evi-
dence will aid in the particular apprehension or conviction.
Hughes v. State, 14 Md. App. 497, supports this proposi-
A 139
tion, provided the warrant does not authorize a "general
rummage through all the materials,"’ in the place to be
searched.
As a result of the hearing to suppress the evidence, the
Court finds that there was not a nexus shown as to those
items on the report and return of both search warrants,
with the exception of items marked for the purpose of
the suppression hearing as Defendant's Exhibits 10, 11, 12,
13 and 14 seized from the Plyers Mill Road premises; and
items marked Defendant's Exhibits 15, 18, 35, 23, 16, 20,
24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 17, 21, 30, 19, 33 and 34 seized from
the Decatur Avenue premises. These items are hereafter
referred to as excepted items. All the other items have
been returned to the defendant. Therefore only the ex-
cepted items will be further considered for the purpose of
memorandum and order.
As to the excepted items, it appears to the Court that
the State has conclusively shown a nexus between them
and the alleged criminal behavior. The warrant did not
authorize a ''general rummage through all the materials’’
in the defendant's offices, and the warrant was not a gen-
eral one. Hughes, supra.
Evidence Out of Date
Defendant contends that much of the evidence seized
by the search warrant was out of date, in that it covered
in some instances several years prior to the alleged offen-
ses. The State contends that these items of evidence tend
to show a plan, design or scheme by the defendant to
perpetrate the alleged offenses and therefore should not
be suppressed. The Court finds that the excepted items
A. 140
are not too remote in time and that they may tend to
aid in conviction by showing a plan, design or scheme
and the intent of the defendant. Gilchrist v. State, 2 Md.
App. 635.
Restitution
These cases involve the settlement of real estate trans-
actions by the defendant, in which he allegedly gave
certifications of clear titles when in fact he knew that
there were outstanding encumbrances in the form of deeds
of trust. Defendant's argument is that although there may
have been outstanding encumbrances in the form of deeds
of trust on certain parcels of real estate when they were
settled, there had been releases filed on those particular
parcels of land on the deeds of trust prior to the indict-
ment. Assuming that the defendant did subsequently ar-
range to release the encumbrances on the real estate trans-
action subsequent to the closings, it would be no defense
to the crimes charged against the defendant. Delcher v.
State, 161 Md. 475 at 487. Furthermore, the evidence
shows that one deed of trust involving Lot 13-T has
never been paid.
Lack of Probable Cause
The determination of the existence of probable cause
must be confined solely to the affidavit itself and evidence
outside the affidavit, no matter by whom produced or
how, is not relevant to the inquiry of probable cause.
Grimm v. State. 7 Md. App. 491 at page 493. The de-
fendant contends that there was no probable cause to
search the premises at 3700 Decatur Avenue. The affi-
davit conclusively shows that George Young and Audrey
E. Young were present in the law offices of the defendant
A 141
or on about July 18, 1972 where settlement was held for
the purchase of Lot 13, Block T, Section 10 of the Poto-
mac Woods Subdivision in Montgomery County, Maryland.
As a consequence to that settlement, Lot 13-T was con-
veyed to Young Contracting Company and the purchasers
were told by the defendant that the title was clear, when
in fact it was not. As a result of this transaction, it seems
to the Court that it is quite clear that evidence involving
this settlement and others alleged in the affidavit would
be found on these premises. The affidavits are lengthy
ones, obviously done with much care, and supported by
numerous exhibits, all of which establishes beyond any
doubt, sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the
warrants.
Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution
The thrust of defendant's argument here is that he has
the right of privacy in and over his person, house, papers
and effects, on the ground that to permit those items to
be introduced into evidence would be a prohibition against
compulsory self-incrimination.
On this point there seems to be no Maryland law, and
im two cases before the Federal system, the Courts took
Opposite views and in both cases certiorari was denied by
the United States Supreme Court.
In United States v. Blank, 459 F2d. 2d 383 [Sixth
Circuit, 1972], the United States Court made a distinction
between those records sought by subpoena and records
sought by search warrant. They held that there was a
valid and important distinction. The subpoena compels
A 142
the person receiving it by his own response to identify
the document and deliver as the one described in the
subpoena; the search warrant involves no such element of
ccmpulsion upon an actual or potential defendant. In the
Hill v. Philpott case, 445 Fed. 2d 145, Second Circuit, the
Court held that the subpoena-search warrant distinction
was "more shadow than substance,'’ and held that the
seizure of personal papers of the defendant was in wiola-
tion of the Fifth Amendment. The Blank case in efffect
rejected the holdings in the Philpott case, and seems to
this Court to be the better law. 8J, Wigmore, Evidence,
Sec. 2264 [McNaughton, Rev., 1961]. It is conceded in
this case that evidence produced by the defendant in
response to a subpoena duces tecum would be in viola-
tion of the Fifth Amendment, but it is argued that evi-
dence received as a result of the search warrant compels
the defendant to do nothing. Relying on the Blank case
and Wigmore on Evidence, this Court holds that the seiz-
ure of the excepted items by search warrant does not
violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Con-
stitution.
Plain View Doctrine
One of the excepted items above, Number 19, obtained
from the law offices of the defendant, is admitted by
the State not to be an instrumentality of the alleged
crimes provided in the affidavit and is not ''mere evidence’
to aid in the apprehension or conviction of defendant as
to those alleged charges provided in either affidavit. The
State's argument is that this evidence should not be sup-
pressed because it was obtained under "the Plain View
Doctrine.'' This item was found in a file in the law of-
fices of the defendant while the search was being con-
ducted. The testimony of one of the officers conducting
A 143
the search was to the effect that he discovered it and had
a suspicion that it was evidence of another crime. There
is an excellent analysis of the ‘'Plain View Doctrine" in
Brown v. State, 15 Md. App. 584.
Judge Moylan in the Brown case points out that in
the doctrine as to conditions precedent to its application,
first, there must be a justifiable prior intrusion; and,
second, that the discovery be inadvertent. One of the
four situations illustrated as a prior valid intrusion is
"the warranted search of a given area for specific objects
. in the course of [which] .. . the searchers [come
across] some other articles of incriminating character."
Both the searches in these cases were the result of a war-
ranted search of a given area for specific objects, and
therefore satisfy the first requirement. This was not a
planned warrantless seizure which the Court prevents by
the imadvertent requirement. There was ample reason to
suspect in this case that the defendant had records of the
alleged illegal transactions in his law offices, and seizure
of this particular item did not require a further intrusion;
and the discovery of the individual items not pertaining
to the main subject matter of the affidavit was inadvertent.
The requirements of the ''Plain View Doctrine" are there-
fore met, and this item will not be suppressed.
For these reasons it is, this /9th day of April, 1973,
ORDERED that the motion to suppress the evidence be
granted to all those items on the return and report with
the exceptions of items marked for the purpose of the
suppression hearing as Defendant's Exhibits 10, 11, 12,
13 and 14 seized from the Plyers Mill Road premises; and
items marked for the purpose of the suppression hearing
A. 144
as Defendant's Exhibits 15, 18, 35, 23, 16, 20, 24, 28,
29, 31, 32, 17, 21, 30, 19, 33 and 34 seized from the
Decatur Avenue premises; and as to the items listed the
motion is hereby denied.
Samuel W. Barrick
Judge
(Filed April 19, 1973)
TRUE COPY TEST:
Ellis C. Wachter
Clerk
[34]
[35]
A. 145
EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
ON MOTIONS
AUSTIN L. MOYER
* * * * *
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMB:
* * * * ba
Q. When was your last interview with Mr. Hecht?
A. As I stated before, Mr. Lamb, it was prior to the af-
fidavit and after Mr. Young's interview.
Q. Can your notes refresh your — A. I don’t have
my interview with Mr. Hecht with me at this time.
Q. Well, is it possible that it happened in September,
or August? A. I don’t believe so. I think it was af-
ter Mr. Young’s,
Q. But you don’t have any idea what month it was
in? A. Not at this time.
Q. With respect to the interview with Mr. Hecht, you
received information that there was a lien applying to Lot
13T, is that correct — that is the information you gave in
your affidavit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Hecht informed you that he had been re-
ceiving payments from Mr. Andresen for the benefit of
Mr. Melvin C, Clark? A. Yes.
Q. And did he also tell you when you talked to him
that he had a check that was noted as to Lot 13T, indi
cating money to pay off the release of the lot?
MR. WERNER: I object, because this is not listed in
this affidavit — he’s going behind the affidavit.
MR. LAMB: Your Honor, I think this is definitely per-
tinent as to whether there was in fact probable cause to
believe a fraud had been committed. The question is
ee
[36]
A. 146
whether any false pretense or fraud had been perpetrated
when there is probable cause to believe that it was perpe-
trated. I submit that the basic allegations in the affidavit
center themselves around the liens of record as to Lot 13,
liens being held by Madison National Bank and by State
National, and if in fact they were not liens of record at
that time and the agent knew about it or knew that pay-
ment had been made, I submit that that is a misrepresen-
tation in the affidavit which goes to the validity of the
affidavit.
MR. WERNER: May I respond to that, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WERNER: Your Honor, contained within the ex-
hibits attached to and made part of the affidavit and the
search warrant is the deed for Lot 13T. I believe it is Ex-
hibit Number 4. It is dated July 17, 1972 and the rec
order’s stamp for the Clerk’s Office of Montgomery County
is on it, July 19, 1972 — that is the critical date. Now,
what happened between October 25th and October 30th
when Mr. Moyer went to get the search warrant is not ma-
terial. The crime was or was not committed when that
land went to record with those releases — those trusts paid
or not paid — that’s the critical time, not October.
MR. LAMB: Your Honor, I submit that Mr. Werner’s
understanding of the real estate law is incorrect from the
standpoint of when the fraud was committed. The mere
fact that the deed was going to record —
THE COURT: I think we’re getting far afield of the
issues before us today. That may or may not be the law,
but I don’t think that’s a question for the magistrate to
determine in issuing the search warrant for the Circuit
Court judge.
MR. LAMB: Your Honor, | submit that the facts that
the Circuit Court judge had to review for a search warrant
(37]
A. 147
—he has to determine whether there is probable cause to
believe that some crime has been committed; probable
cause to believe that evidence of the crime is located in
the property where the search warrant is going to be
executed, In determining that, the point in time when a
warrant is to be issued, he has to consider the freshness
of the facts and the truth of the facts. I submit that if
false facts are contained in the affidavit, that that negates
a probable cause. If there is no probable cause—
THE COURT: That would have to be known to the
person who was issuing the search warrant, would it not?
In other words, the law, as I understand it, is that we
do not look beyond the four corners of the affidavit to
determine whether or not there was probable cause, and
I would like for you to present me a case where you can
attack the search warrant on the basis that you’re trying
to,
MR. LAMB: Your Honor, I’m not trying to offer evi-
dence external to the search warrant, the sheer proof of
the truth or falsity of the facts contained therein by ex-
traneous witnesses — I’m not talking about bringing in
witnesses that the agent talked to; I’m talking about what
was within the personal knowledge of the agent when he
swore to the warrant and if he knowingly swore to facts
which were incorrect — then I should say that that de
stroys the warrant, and a judge cannot determine that. If
it comes out today that the agent knew in fact as of the
date he swore to the warrant, number one, that releases
were filed two months preceding that —
THE COURT: I think you’re correct on that. You
may proceed,
MR. LAMB: This is a search warrant and not an ar-
rest warrant or anything like that, a search warrant incident
[38]
(39]
A. 148
to an arrest — we're dealing with a different type of war-
rant. Now, Agent, when you talked to Mr. Hecht did he
relate to you that he had received a check from Mr. An-
dresen which was applicable to Lot 13T about the 14th
of September or thereafter? A. I recall a check; he
mentioned a check, yes, sir.
Q. And it related to Lot 13T, is that correct?
A. It related to Lot 13T; the date I can’t remember.
Q. It was September, wasn’t it? A. I don’t know.
Q. Well, it was roughly about the same time that you
interviewed the man? A. About that time, yes, sir —
about that time.
Q. Did he show you the check? A. I can’t re
member whether he showed it to me or not at that time.
©. And he related to you at that time that they were
having some kind of a civil problem between Mr. Melvin L.
Clark, Mr. Andresen and the bank as to what loans were
being paid off by this money, is that correct? A. He
related something, but it wasn’t quite that.
©. What did he relate? A. He related—
MR. WERNER: Your Honor, we object — he’s going
beyond the search warrant and the affidavit. What differ-
ence does it make — it isn’t in the affidavit.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.
A. He related that it would not go for payment on the
note, but that it would be applied to other — other debts
owed,
Q. Even though the check specified Lot 13T on it, and
there was a release provided, is that correct? A. Yes,
because as you said, there was some litigation which I
didn’t get involved in.
* * - * *
[42]
{104}
[105]
A. 149
MR. LAMB: I will ask the witness this question, Your
Honor. The false pretense which you say you provide
probable cause for in the affidavit, you say occurred in
July of 1972? A. I believe,
Q. And not subsequent thereto? A. No,
Q. So there was three months between the date of
the false pretense and the date you swore to the facts in
the affidavit? A. Yes,
Q. So all the evidence contained here is three months
old—all the evidence, within your personal knowledge, is
three months old? A. Yes.
* . * * .
THE COURT: Let’s take them individually. Do you
have any questions about this particular piece of evidence,
Mr. Lamb?
MR. LAMB: Yes, Your Honor, I have.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMB:
Q. Agent Moyer, this particular piece of evidence at
the time you found it, you didn’t see that it had any di-
rect relevance to tiie commission of a crime of false pre-
tense, did you — it was oniy subsequent to that that you
found that out? A. No, I believed it had relevance to
the false pretense.
Q. What relevance? A. The fact that 13T was
represented to Mr. Young as not having any trusts on it,
and it turned out that eventually a State National Bank
trust was on it.
Q. Does that document tend to prove one way or the
other whether there was or was not false pretense?
A. Not at the time of seizure, no.
Q. So at that time you had no knowledge of its evi-
dentiary value in the proof of false pretense, did you?
A. This particular—
[106]
A. 150.
Q. You didn’t even know what it was when you first
saw it, the day you took it, did you? A. If I saw
it, and I don’t remember whether I did —
Q. You don’t remember whether you saw it the day
you seized it? A. I went through the file. There
were certain things I seen which was represented to me—
this here file tended to be involved with the Potomac
Woods project, and that’s why I seized it.
Q. So you took the whole file? A. That’s right.
Q. And it wasn’t until some later time that you saw
some possible value, evidentiary value to that particular
piece of paper as possible evidence introduceable in a
proof of a crime of false pretense? A. Yes.
Q. And on its face it does not indicate a crime of
false pretense, does it? A. On its face it indicates to
me now that it is — it could be part of the crime of
false pretenses.
Q. That’s today, you’re making that decision?
A. Yes, that’s today.
Q. But not at the time it was seized? A. No.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WERNER:
Q. One other question, if I may, Mr. Moyer. Know-
ing what you knew at the time you swore to the affidavit
and then executed it, and going in and seeing this docu-
ment with certain familiar names on it, namely, State
National Bank, Lumsden and Antonelli, alongside of 13T
and the fact that it was found in files which you thought
or which were represented to you might belong to Mr.
Andresen, did that in and of itseif have some special sig-
nificance to you in relation to the criminal prosecution?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that? A. That it, it could be used
as evidence to explain the false pretense; possibly it might
[107]
[108]
A. 151
be am instrumentality indicating a prior trust had not been
released, which would be State National Bank, and that
would be — indicate the transaction to the Antonellis prior
to Mr. Young getting — prior to Mr. Young’s transaction.
Q. Was there any special significance to you that it
was found in a file that purportedly was Mr. Andresen’s?
A. Yes, it would link him up with it.
MR. WERNER: Thank you,
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMB:
Q. One further, Agent. All of this that you are re
lating at this time is opinion that you have now formu-
lated, long after you seized the document, is that correct?
A. I believed at the time I had probable cause. Now—
Q. Officer, answer my question. First of all, you said
you didn’t even know the document was in the file when
you seized it? A. I said I didn’t remember, I’m sorry.
Q. You didn’t remember, and you don’t remember
today? A. If it was in the file at that time, I don’t
remember. I know I looked in the file and there were
certain items relating to the transaction that | was looking
for, and as a result of that I seized the whole file.
Q. And on the basis of your investigation after — both
before and after the seizure, today you are able to give
the opinon that you think on the basis of your experience
as an investigator that it does have a nexus — that is, to
day you are giving that opinion? A. Yes, naturally.
Q. But that’s not necessarily the opinion you would
have had on the day that you seized that piece of paper?
A. Had I specifically picked this paper out and re-
membered it, it would be my opinion on that day as weil
as today.
Q. But you didn’t even know you had it until some
time after you took it? A. I don’t remember whether
(110)
[111]
A. 152
this was a document I looked at or another piece of paper
reflected to me some connection between Lot 13T—I can’t
remember.
6 * a *
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMB:
Q. Again, the testimony you are giving today is on
the basis of information which has come to your atten-
tion after the seizure of this document, in trying to re
late this document to other documents which you seized
from Mr. Andresen’s office? A. Yes.
Q. So you have reviewed this document together with
the documents and files taken from Mr. Andresen’s office
pursuant to another search warrant, and then have decided
that there is a relationship between this and what was
found in Mr. Andresen’s office? A. I don’t quite
understand your question, Mr. Lamb.
Q. It is a fact that after you took these files back to
your office, that you reviewed the documents contained
in the files and related them to the documents that were
taken from Mr. Andresen?
THE COURT: I believe his answer to that question
previously had been that he did pick up this file titled,
“Potomac Woods,” and that in that file he noticed that
there were certain papers that would pertain to Lot 13A
which of those papers, he took the file on the basis of
those. He does not recall — he’s answered that three or
four times. I believe his testimony is that he doesn’t know
whether this was the paper or another paper or several
papers that you called his attention to were in this file,
and on the basis of that he seized it. Is that correct, Mr.
Moyer?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
[112]
A. 153
MR. WERNER: The only thing I’m trying to get at
is, his opinion today is on the basis of subsequent review-
ing of this document in connection with other documents
after the seizure, and not before.
THE COURT: I quite frankly don’t understand your
question, Maybe if you phrase it another way I'll un-
derstand it.
MR. WERNER: Yes, Your Honor. Agent, when you
seized the file this document came from, you compared
this document to other documents that were obtained in
execution of the search warrant on Mr. Andresen’s office,
is that correct? A. And on others, And on—
Q. Plyers Mill Road? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is it at this time that you decided this did
have a distinct bearing on the proof of the false pretense
case? A. That particular document I cannot say yes
or no, but one of the documents in the file where this
document is part of, reflected to me that 13T, Potomac
Woods, and attached to the affidavit was an inclosure of
the deed of trust involved in Lot 13T.
Q. Where on this document is 13T referred to?
A. “Lot or Parcel 13, Block T, Section 10, Potomac
Woods,”
Q. And what is — strike that. And you came to find
out subsequently to that the recording information of that
deed — A. Yes, sir.
Q. —By which Mr. Clark transferred the property out
to somebody else; and do you know when that happened?
A. If I can see the affidavit I could tell you.
MR. LAMB: I will withdraw the question. No further
questions,
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any other ques
tions, Mr. Werner?
[113]
[114]
A. 154
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WERNER:
Q. Mr. Moyer, with respect to what is now Defendant’s
Exhibit 13, being a yellow legal pad, the first two pages
of which are clipped because they apparently came loose,
but the last page or the last line of the entry, will you
please read that to the Court. A. “Lot 13’"— under
“Lot” is Number 13; under “Block” is the letter T; under
“Section” is 10 and then there’s a number, 69351, Ra-
faelle Antonelli, liber and folio number — the liber is
3922, the folio number is 344.
Q. What does that indicate to you? A. That
would indicate that there was a transaction in the land
records of Montgomery County under the liber and folio
listed, to the name Rafaelle Antonelli,
Q. And—? A. It would appear to be a transfer of
title or transfer of deed.
Q. You have already explained as to the last exhibit,
what the liber and folio meant, the lot and block number.
With regard to 69-351, have you encountered that particu-
lar number before in your investigation? A. I have en-
countered a series or the number system which is used by
Mr. Andresen, or which was reported to be used by Mr.
Andresen, which would list the year and then the case
number following the year.
Q. Did you encounter any of these such numbers in
the various legal instruments purportedly prepared by Mr.
Andresen or signed by Mr. Andresen? I’m referring to
deeds of trust, notes, whatever — settlement sheets; num-
bers such as this. A. I have knowledge of the use of
numbers such as this in Mr, Andresen’s preparing docu-
ments of that sort.
Q. What, then, does that number represent to you?
A. It would represent to me that a file number 69-351
[118]
[121]
A. 155
should reflect the total transaction under the name of Mr.
Antonelli,
Q. And that was Mr. Andresen’s case number?
A. Yes, it appeared to be.
Q. Did you have or can you recollect on this parti-
cular occasion whether or not this document was specific-
ally seen by you at the time of seizure? A. No, I
can’t.
Q. The same answer as you have given on the other
one? A. Yes,
* . * * .
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMB:
. * * * *
Q. Again, you have no specific recollection of this
document at the time of seizure? A. No.
oe * * * *
Q. Have you ever seen that document before today?
A. I believe this is the document within the file that I
looked at. It looks more familiar than any other.
Q. Do you have any particular memory of seeing that
document at any time personally at the scene? A. Yes.
Q. When? A. At the time I seized them, | think
this is the one I’m more familiar with than any of the
rest.
Q. Are you familiar with each and every page? There
must be — must have been originally fifty pages.
Q. No, not each and every page.
Q. So you didn’t review each page? A. No.
Q. Again, this was seized, as the others, because it
was part of the Potomac Woods file? A. Right.
Q. And then you took it back to your office and
then you looked at it and determined what benefit it
would have as evidence in the case? A. Yes.
[155]
[156]
A. 156
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMB:
* * a * *
Q. Some seven months preceding this — the charges
which give rise to the warrant itself? A. I think that
would be some ten months,
Q. Ten months, excuse me. And is that the last and
most recent date in that file? A. I cannot answer to
that, sir.
Q. Well, all of those documents in that file — not all
of them have any direct bearing on scheme or plan or
motive, do they? A. No, they do not, sir.
Q. How many documents in that file have bearing on
proof of scheme or motive? A. I would have to
search the file to tell you exactly how many.
Q. So is it fair to say that there is a substantial part
of the file which really tends to prove—nothing that would
be evidence, in your opinion, to prove scheme, motive or
plan in the carrying out of the operation? A. That’s
correct.
Q. That is also applicable to a number of other files
you related or testified to, that had some indirect bearing
on Lot 13T, is that correct? A. Would you say that
again, please,
MR. LAMB: [I'll withdraw the question, The next file
being Number 15, Clark-King to Lyons,
(Defendant’s Exhibit
25 marked. )
MR. LAMB: Does that have any direct bearing on Lot
13T? A. No direct bearing, no.
Q. Does it have the same bearing as related in the pre
vious file, namely, tending to show motives, scheme or
A. 157
carrying out of a plan? A. That particular file also
shows knowledge of existing trust as to Lot 13T.
Q. What is the date of the knowledge you can impute
to Mr. Andresen? How old is that file? A. Well,
there is a document here bearing the dates of — I guess it’s
April, 1970.
Q. So that means it was thirteen or fourteen months
before? A. No, it does not mean that it was thirteen
or fourteen months before. That particular document was
thirteen or fourteen months before. There’s another one
here, May of 1970; there’s another one of March, 1970.
Basically, the documents are dated in the March, April,
May period of 1970.
Q. So it is fair to say that it was at least one year
prior to the sale of Lot 13T? A. Approximately a
year,
Q. And eighteen months preceding execution of the
warrant? A. That is correct.
* * * * *
[186] DEBORAH NALLS
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMB:
* s * * *
Q. Well, your investigation covered Mr, Andresen’s ac-
tivities for at least one year preceding July? A. At
times the investigation involved transactions that had begun
years before — for example, deeds of trust where the set-
tlement had been years before and they weren’t released
until the time of our investigation, or after.
Q. At the time you executed the search warrant you
were aware of the fact that formal charges were going to
be brought very shortly against Mr. Andresen, were you
not? A. At the time of the search warrant?
[187]
[188]
A. 158
Q. At the time you executed that warrant. A, I
knew that — I didn’t know for a certainty; I knew that
there was a sizeable amount of evidence regarding Lot
13T,
Q. The bill of complaint charging him with four
counts of false pretense had already been made up before
you ever executed the search warrant, hadn’t it? A, I
wasn’t involved in writing the bill of information.
Q. Well, do you know whether it was written before
the warrant was executed? A. I don’t know for sure.
Q. It was done by your office, though, wasn’t it?
A. Yes,
Q. And you knew at that time that you were particu-
larly interested in transactions revolving around 13T?
A. That’s correct.
Q. That looked like to be the major charge that you
were going to bring against Mr. Andresen at that time and
you were looking for evidence to prove that crime out of
Mr. Andresen’s office, weren’t you? A. That’s true,
Q. And that’s the reason why you put together — not
you; when I say “‘you” I mean the State’s Attorney’s of-
fice — that’s the reason for putting together the search
warrant, to get in there and find evidence to prove the
allegations regarding 13T, the false pretense? A. Yes,
Q. And you had suspicion regarding a number of other
transactions that you didn’t have a lot of evidence about,
don’t you—didn’t you? A. That’s true.
Q. Particularly the F.O, Day transaction regarding the
deed of trust? A. I was more aware of particular
lots,
Q. You were aware of the Holtzclaw— does that name
mean anything to you? A. Yes.
Q. And Warfield -- does that name mean something
to you? A. Yes.
[189]
A. 159
Q. And Pollitt? A. Yes
Q. These are all people who were ultimately named
as complaining witnesses in the indictment, are they not?
A. Yes,
Q. You were aware of those people and the problems
that they had before you went in Mr. Andresen’s office
looking for evidence? A. Yes, I was,
Q. And these people were not named in the affidavit
that you prepared — that you assisted in preparing for
the search warrant, were they? A. I only indirectly
assisted in the preparing of the affidavit.
Q. But you did do title examinations? A. Yes
Q. And you were an expert as far as the property and
title search work? A. I had some background in that,
yes,
Q. And you had more background than anybody else
in the office regarding titles? A. Yes.
Q. You had sat in on a number of conversations with
members of your office discussing possible charges aris-
ing out of Holtzclaw, Pollitt, Warfield, Lot 13 and the
F.O, Day trust, is that correct? A. 1 think you’re
repeating yourself, because 25R, Warfield, was F.O, Day;
the deed of trust that was late on that was F.O, Day.
The same is true of 12S, the Pollitts.
Q. Were you also familiar with the Federline security
agreement? A. When I walked in with the search
party, what I had in mind with regard to 25R and 12S
was F,O, Day, because I knew that that was two years
late in each case,
Q. It was two years late as to the recording of the
instrument, I assume? A. I knew in those two cases
it was two years late in payment, which I| had learned
through their attorneys.
[191]
[192]
[209]
A. 160
* * * * *
MR. LAMB: Mrs, Nalls, you went in there with the
warrant looking for, in your mind, anything which tended
to prove either intent, motive or tend to be evidence in a
crime of false pretense regarding Lot 13T? A. That’s
right.
Q. You were aware of the general investigation regard-
ing a number of other lots and a number of other com-
plaints, a number of other deeds of trust — you were
fully aware of their existence and possible problems at
that time? A. That’s true. In the prosecutor’s judg-
ment they did not amount to probable cause, but they
would be useful if knowledge was shown, to show absence
of mistake,
Q. And as a result of your search you did find enough
evidence to indict, didn’t you? A. Yes,
Q. So when you went in there you were short of
probable cause with respect to any of these other crimes,
but you thought you had probable, or you did have prob-
able cause to assume on Lot 13T, so you were getting in
there so that you could look through all the files to find
evidence as to Lot 13T only? A. That’s correct. We
were looking for — I’m sure you can understand this —
with a title attorney with a lot of volume as Mr. Andresen
had, that an argument of negligence might be quite plausi-
ble if it happened in only one case, so we were interested
in any evidence tending to show that this happened re-
peatedly, because it would argue against the possibility of
negligence or mistake.
. . . aa ”
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WERNER:
* * * ~ .
A. There is a handwritten document that apparently was
in preparation for this listing of lots to be encumbered, one
{210}
A. 161
of which was 13T, There is another handwritten docu-
ment listing State National Bank to Clark-King. In my
judgment it was relating to the same 13T — it says, ““New
case,”’ and it looks like a direction to set up a file on the
State National Bank trust that covered 13T,
Q. Was that some evidence that you felt was worth-
while? A. Yes, I felt if the handwriting were Mr.
Andresen’s, for example, that might show he gave direc-
tion on this trust which encumbered 13T, Now, there is
a handwritten note that says, among other things, “Part
of the consideration for the deed of trust is evidenced by
previously contracted and existing debts.” It mentions
Quinby — I think Quinby is the name — Clark joint ven-
ture, and I knew that Mr, Clark had previously had another
partner, and I knew that Clark was Mel Clark, the man
who had executed the deed of trust encumbering Lot 13T,
and apparently it related — my judgment at the time was
that it related to State National Bank negotiations for that
deed of trust that encumbered 13T,
Here is a document from Equitable Life Insurance Com-
pany — at least with their letterhead; it discusses a deed
of trust securing, among other things, 13T. It is appar-
ently to Chicago Title Insurance Company, care of Mr.
Andresen, discussing — it’s sort of a standard form letter
discussing instructions to a settlement attorney, when he
is empowered to disburse funds coming from this lot,
but it specifically mentions Lot 13T as one of the lots
to be encumbered by Equitable Life Insurance Company.
Q. What is the date of that letter? A. Apparently
it’s August 1967, apparently an early lien. Here’s another
handwritten note, very informal, on a yellow sheet; men-
tions State National Bank which I knew to be the deed
of trust; I also knew that covered Lot 13T. It mentions
A. 162
Mr. Covert whom | knew was handling that deed of trust;
mentions Clark-King Construction Company, Incorporated,
the party who sold 13T originally and who executed deeds
of trust that continued to encumber that property for
three years. It mentions again the amount of the State
National Bank deed of trust and the rate of interest on
the deed of trust that encumbered 13T. There is an add-
ing machine slip that adds up charges and so on on the
settlement sheet —
* . * * *
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMB:
* * . . .
Q. What about the other material? A. This is
correspondence regarding a loan.
Q. In what year? A. I beg your pardon?
Q. In what year? A. In what year?
Q. What year is the correspondence? A. 1968,
* * * * o
Q. In 1968? A. No; 1967.
Q. 1967, excuse me. Okay, the next document.
* * * * e
WITNESS: This is a handwritten note; I did not know
at the time who wrote it — I suspected that Mr. Andresen
had, It itemizes the lots that were going to be encum-
bered by deed of trust where he was the trustee, so this
was a memorandum written by a trustee, It was in my
judgment, I surmised, regarding the deed of trust where
he was a trustee which encumbered 13T.
a * * * *
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WERNER:
* * * * *
[226]
[227]
[230]
A. 163
MR. WERNER: Please continue with that file.
A. There is a handwritten note and copy of release, both
sides, sent to Tobin. I was interested in knowing whether
this release sent under Mr. Andresen’s direction or perhaps
under Mr. Zentz’s direction — that it had in fact been re-
leased.
Q. That’s a handwritten note? A. That’s correct.
* * * * =
This is a balance sheet. As I mentioned, I could locate
no escrow books, and this mentions escrow, so I assumed
that this is a balance sheet with the escrow holding with
respect to 7T. As I mentioned, I was particularly in-
terested in any evidence of intent to not use the pur-
chaser’s money to pay off existing encumbrances, and
here on this settlement sheet is listed, and this is hand-
written, some of the deeds of trust that I knew remained
—in fact, the three that I knew remained on that property.
Next to it is a bracket, and, handwritten, “‘Deferred.” I
knew two were paid late, I knew all three were released
late, and when I saw “Deferred,” that indicated that that
was intentionally done, That seemed to me to strongly
negative any argument of negligence in what I regarded
as a similar transaction, Lot 13, Block T.
* * * a *
Q. And that’s Mr. Andresen’s letterhead on top of
that settlement sheet? A. That’s right. I was in-
terested in the handwriting on this also, for an analysis.
And then there is a settlement sheet for the buyer again
on 7T. Following that are handwritten versions. I was
interested in a handwriting analysis, Interestingly, appar-
ently there are many things listed on here that appear
to be both subcontractors’ bills and deeds of trust. Some
of them are crossed off. I was thinking that apparently
[231]
[232]
A. 164
he was paying these other bills with the money and there
wasn’t enough proceeds from the sale so he did not pay
at that time the assignments that he had crossed off.
Then there is a handwritten copy of the buyer’s settle-
ment sheet,
& * . * *
A. It does, only on this copy they’re not circled.
They are circled on the Xerox copy. There is a stub, ap-
parently a check stub on here with Enterprise Federal
Savings & Loan. Enterprise had a construction loan on
this piece of property and a permanent loan. This is an
accounting to Mr. Andresen, They had $36,000, approxi-
mately, outstanding on their construction loan. They were
giving a permanent loan for approximately $38,000, so
what they sent to Mr. Andresen was the difference, and
it was from this that he disbursed monies at the time of
settlement.
Q. Did, or did not disburse monies? A. Well, that’s
correct, but this is the money sent to be disbursed, to pay
off encumbrances. Following are letters of assignment to
people whom I knew to be subcontractors.
Q. Are those people named in any of those various
sets of settlement sheets? A. Yes, and apparently
some of them were paid—Minnix in particular; Standard
Supply, Minnix, Mr. Federline, an assignment — I knew
him to be a plumber; Maloney Concrete Company and
Tassi Dry Wall Service. There is a handwritten note that
says, “Pay Minnix,’’ and has the amount, and “7T.” I
was interested in an analysis of the handwriting to see
whether Mr. Andresen had instructed payment on this
rather than payment on deeds of trust I knew to be en-
cumbering the property. There are adding machine tallies
and they have the case number right on them; one is listed
for the seller and one for the buyer.
[275]
[276]
A. 165
* * * * *
MR. WERNER: There are some more pads there, are
there not, Mrs. Nalls? A. Yes, and they just bring it up
to a more recent date,
Q. So one pad is an older accounting and one a newer
accounting. There is a third pad? A. That’s correct.
Q. By the way, before you go to the third pad, do any
of those cases — are they familiar to you — were they fa-
miliar to you at that time, either by lot and block number
or by purchaser’s name, as any of those lots that were se-
curity for the Lumsden and State National deeds of trust?
A. They were strikingly familiar. They were the lots I
had been on notice for late releases; some of which I knew
about late payments; others that I did not.
Q. Such as —? A. The Holtzclaws, the Pollitts,
Clark-King; Antonelli, which is 13T; the Belts; the Daugh-
ertys; 211 McAuley Park, Mrs. Chepuras; Federline, 11 and
12T and 16S — they have essentially the same rationale in
my mind as previous documents I have gone through. Now,
the third pad is different. On this there are lots and blocks
on the left-hand vertical column. Across the top are the
Madison and Lumsden deed of trust, the State National
Bank deed of trust, the F.O. Day deed of trust and the
Federline deed of trust. My inference from this document
was that this was a fairly recent attempt to tally up what
was Owing on these various lots on these four deeds of
trust,
Q. When you say “owing,” what do you mean?
A. I didn’t know whether it was owing or unreleased or
what, but the amounts listed on here are curtailment
amounts and the lots in question on the sheet are the very
same lots that I had been on notice about, plus some other
Jots, and in my mind was an attempt to straighten out which
[277]
[290]
[291]
A. 166
ones had been taken care of and which had not, The
reason I say ''recent"’ is, there is a red mark on here that
says, “Paid July 26, 1972,” so my thinking was that this
was at least updated through July 26, 1972.
Q. Are one of those lots listed on there, 13T?
A. Well, they’re actually — this looks like a continuation
of this sheet, and on the continuation is 13T, Antonelli,
and other very familiar lots — the Belts, the Daughertys,
the Chepurases, the Holtzclaws, the Warfields, the Pollitts;
and others which I had not been on notice for when I
went in.
e * 4 * *
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WERNER:
* . * * *
Q. Okay. Now, in executing or in assisting in execut-
ing the search warrant, where, if you recall, did you find
this particular document? A. If I'm not mistaken it
was on the — well, it was in the office of Peter Andresen
at 3700 Decatur Avenue,
Q. And do you recall where it was? A. It was
within the files. |
Q. Why did you seize it? A. Because I had
knowledge of the prior state of the document, and Mr.
Andresen’s — Mr. Hitchen’s allegations.
Q. And furthermore — A. Furthermore, I thought
it was a forgery, and seized this document because |
felt as though the original of the document would be the
most proper item to use to verify that as far as submitting
it for analysis.
Q. What kind of analysis?
analysis.
A. Typewriter
[292]
[293]
[300]
A. 167
Q. So you seized that document during the course of
the search? A. Yes, I did.
& es o e oe
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMB:
Q. Agent Lawrence, you suspected a forgery situation
when you entered Mr. Andresen’s office under the warrant,
and that’s why you seized that original deed of trust?
A. I suspected a forgery situation when I went there,
yes,
Q. And that’s why you seized the document?
A. I seized the document so that I might use the original
document for analysis.
MR. LAMB: No further.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WERNER:
Q. Mr. Lawrence, is it accurate to characterize what
you knew at the time you went in there as suspicion?
A. Yes, it would be accurate.
Q. That’s all you had? A. That’s all I had, correct.
Q. Suspicion? A. Right.
*
* * - *
MR. LAMB: I’m ready to submit argument, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LAMB: Your Honor, first of all, the original mo-
tion sounds the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, con-
stitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
It sounds — the original motion itself sounds very broadly
with respect to these two rights or rights that are granted
to people under those two amendments, because the two
amendments also include certain requirements with respect
to validity of search warrants and affidavits presented to
judges which support issuance of the search warrants.
[304]
[305]
A. 168
First, 1 would like to start with a broad picture to the
validity of the warrants with respect to whether they es-
tablish probable cause, and to allow the entry in and
search of the property known as 3700 Decatur Avenue
and the Plyers Mill Road address.
e s * * *
In addition, Your Honor, with respect to the allegation
contained in the affidavit, they allege as substantial proof
of the fact that there has been a false pretense that when
State National was contacted they allegedly had not been
paid, when in fact prior to — within a month or two
months prior to the execution of the affidavit, in the af-
fidavit itself it acknowledges they had received payment
and released Lot 13T, which | submit if Your Honor con-
siders on the basis of a continuing offense, a continuing
false pretense, the false pretense had in fact terminated and
ceased by that time, because the release had been filed
and the money had been paid to State National Bank to
release their lien of record as it involved Lot 13T. Now,
in addition —
THE COURT: That was when?
MR. LAMB: The money was paid State National on
September 13th, I think, of 1972, and the release was ob-
tained, executed and recorded with respect to Lot 13T,
being some forty-five days or so prior to the swearing of
the affidavit, yet the affiants include this in their applica-
tion for the warrant as probable cause to believe a false
pretense, according to Your Honor’s theory, is being per-
formed on the premises—
THE COURT: I didn’t say that that was my theory—
I just asked you—
MR. LAMB: Yes, Your Honor; in trying to support
the continuing false pretense theory to justify that a crime
[307]
A. 169
is now being committed on the premises, | submit that
this defeats the alleged probable cause of that false pretense.
In addition to that, there is an allegation regarding the
Madison National Bank note, known — formerly known
as the Lumsden note, and as testimony I believe from
Agent Moy. , and I stand to be corrected, that upon con-
tacting Mr. Hecht in September of 1972, he acknowledged
that he had in fact received a check in the amount of
$2,000 designated as payment for Lot 13T, and that he
was refusing to release Lot 13T because there was a chal-
lenge with respect to other underlying liabilities as to what
that money should be applied to.
I submit to the Court that taking that testimony, taking
the application for the search warrant and putting them
together that at the time this affidavit was sworn to, Ma-
dison had been paid and they knew they had been paid
in September — on September 13, 1972; and in fact, State
National had been paid, each being paid forty-five days be-
fore the swearing by the affiants to the application for the
warrant, which I submit if this were to be considered a
continuing false pretense, this defeats that argument;
* a * * *
Now, with respect to the format, particulars of the
warrant itself, I will direct my attention in this argument
only to 3700 Decatur Avenue and I would ask the Court
to compare the application for the search warrant in that
particular one to the affidavit in support of the search
warrant for the Piyers Mill Road address, with particular
reference to the facts, the probable cause which gives rise
for a judge or magistrate in reviewing the application to
believe that the articles sought are in fact upon the prop-
erty intended to be searched at the time the warrant is to
be executed, These have to be fresh facts, they have to
[309]
A. 170
name the place with particularity that they are going to
search; they have to identify with particularity the items
to be seized, In the warrant as it applies to the 3700
Decatur Avenue address there is not a scintilla of evidence
alleged in the application and affidavit in support of the
search warrant to give rise to any reasonable belief to be
lieve that any evidence they are seeking under the ‘“‘where-
fore” clauses was in fact being secreted in the address
known as 3700 Decatur Avenue.
* * * * *
Now, I submit that if you review the application and
affidavit closely there isn’t one paragraph nor one sentence
which details why there is a reasonable ground to believe
that any evidence whatsoever is contained in Mr. Andre-
sen’s office, particularly when they are at the same time
issuing another search warrant for another address on the
same basis, They are looking for the same thing in two
different places and they are not even sure where they’re
going to find it, so they hit the two logical places Mr.
Andresen might be holding the papers, and I submit that
the mere statement in the opening parts of the applica-
tion, that it is a law office located on Decatur Street,
is not adequate — that is merely a conclusion of the af-
fiant and, without more, does not justify a judge in find-
ing reasonable or probable cause to believe the evidence
sought is located in that address, particularly with the
false pretense which was alleged to have taken place in
July of 1972 and, at the very latest, under the concept
of continuing false pretense, had stopped by September
13, 1972; and I submit that, on the basis of that, the
warrant itself is deficient and fails, and the search and
seizure of everything from the Decatur Street property
— nothing should have been seized because the officers
[315]
(316)
A. 171
and agents should not have been within the premises; the
warrant should not have been issued.
* * * * *
We submit that under the recent case law, including
Hill versus Philpott and even citing U.S. v. Bennett, which
is the State’s case, in order to distinguish it from our facts,
that the Court must conclude whether the evidence is tes-
timonial or communicative. If it is, then the Court can
decide, although it may be a reasonable search under the
Fourth Amendment, it is important then to decide, if
reasonable, does it violate the defendant’s Fifth Amend-
ment rights, and only when it is communicative or testi-
monial in nature would it be classified as a possible vio-
lation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. This
is taking into consideration Snell v. California, where they
were dealing, I believe, with a blood test — they found
that that was not testimonial or communicative. So I
submit to the Court that the Fourth and Fifth have to
work together; you have to go first to determine whether
you have reasonable search; if you don’t, you never reach
the Fifth Amendment question.
In Warren v. Hayden they did not have a search warrant,
they had an arrest; and they justified the arrest without
warrant because of the circumstances and seizure incident
to the arrest was justified because those items were not
considered testimonial or communicative. And I submit
in this case that they are — they are personal files of an
attorney in his office, they are handwritten notes which
have been testified to, that they suspected them to be
those of Mr. Andresen; and I think it goes without saying
from the testimony introduced previously that they were
Mr. Andresen’s files.
THE COURT: Do you agree, first of all, that the cases
upheld that you can take a man’s blood, you can pump
[317]
A. 172
his stomach, cut his hair, do many other things, and they
have held that those all would be not in violation of the
Fifth Amendment? |
MR. LAMB: Well, Your Honor, I think they have
found specifically in those cases that the particular tests
or evidence that has been taken did not —
THE COURT: Even scraped the skin, in one case.
MR. LAMB: I’m not familiar with that. I know when
it comes down to handwriting exemplars, and in sex cases
they've taken pubic hairs and hair samples and all that,
and that has been accepted because, in and of itself it
does not require the defendant to come in and give testi-
mony to challenge the validity of what was taken, whereas
when you get into written documents, books, records and
things of that nature, you re talking about things which
are similar in nature to confessions and personal papers
as was cited in the Philpott case, in which he was a doc-
tor and he kept sets of books with respect to his patients,
and they seized those and they found that they were in
fact testimonial or communicative, and although the
seizure might be valid under the Fourth Amendment, when
it gets to a consideration of the types of evidence seized
under the Fifth Amendment, if it tends to require that
the defendant take the stand and defend himself, it in fact
violates his Fifth Amendment rights — it is forcing him to
testify against himself because if they introduce the docu-
ments against him, he has no alternative but to testify to
refute that. So it shifts the burden to testify over to the
defendant, which is contrary to our current system of juris-
prudence — he is not required to come forth and prove his
innocence, By allowing these types of documents it would
in fact be doing that, and I submit to the Court that the
first determination, whether they are communicative or
[318]
A. 173
testimonial — if they are, it is a violation of his Fifth
Amendment rights, and in this case I submit that they are.
Now, the Court then, accepting Warren v. Hayden, we
get on to the question of what can be seized even under
an evidentiary warrant. I submit that the warrants we
have before us now are general warrants and they are not
particular in nature, and I read to the Court the language
contained in the warrant itself, which I say is the binding
language that applies, and the Court can disregard at this
juncture, if the Court so chooses -- disregard the applica-
tion altogether. ‘‘hat is merely the basis for the warrant.
The question is, what is the legal authorization of those
people to seize what they did, and it says, in essence,
that, “There are now concealed upon said premises the
following items pertaining to sale, purchase, settlement
and conveyance of Lot 13, Block T, Potomac Woods sub-
division, Montgomery County, Maryland,”’ colon, and then
it goes on further to define what they are allowing to be
seized — title notes, title abstracts, all relating to 13T,
and then it goes through and itemizes the types of things
they’re talking about, and then it gets down to the last
four lines of that paragraph when it says, “and correspond-
ence showing or tending to show a fraudulent intent and/
or knowledge as elements of the crime of false pretense,”
and gives the violation of the article, ''as amended and re-
vised, together with other fruits, instrumentalities and evi-
dence of a crime at this time unknown,”
I submit to the Court with respect to both of those
warrants that this is a general warrant, it isn’t — they were
very particular, if we take the warrant on its face, they
were particular when it started as to 13T and those things
directly affecting 13T, and I submit that that language, if
the Court rules against me on the other argument— that
A. 174
language is specific, and that’s fine; and then you come
up at the end and give a blanket authorization to seize
anything and everything which in the mind of the searcher
might be relevant — is a general warrant. That warrant
permits that person to search, to enter into every file,
{319} everything in the office —
« *
* * *
EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
ON MERITS
CARL ZENTZ
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WERNER:
= * * * *
[315] Q And do you have any other title searchers working
at Mr. Andresen’s office? A. Yes.
Q. And were they under your control and supervision?
A. Yes.
Q. But those documents are all in your handwriting?
A. Yes, these are. I don’t know about this one.
Q. I would offer into evidence 1B, IC and ID.
Lamb: I would object, your Honor.
Court: On what ground,
Lamb: The grounds that have been raised previ-
ously at the pretrial motions and from the stand-
point that his capacity related to Mr. Andresen; per-
sonal work product.
Court: We went through all that before?
Lamb: Yes, Your Honor.
Court: Objection overruled.
Q. Court’s indulgence (Pause), With respect to 1B,
there is nothing written alongside 7T or 13T. What would
that indicate to you on looking at that document. A. There
would be....
[316]
[317]
A. 175
Lamb: Your Honor, I would object. The docu-
ment speaks for itself. Unless he can say specifically
why he left it out,
Court: I will sustain the objection,
Q. | show you what is marked for identification as
State’s Exhibit 1E and ask you if you can identify that
document? A. Yes. It is a list that I made up,
Q. Is it in your handwriting? A. Yes, it is.
Q. Do you have a general name that you give that
list? A. Not really, no,
Q. For what purpose was it made up? A. It was
made up by me to provide myself with a quick, fairly
quick summary of what deeds of trusts were still in exist-
ence on certain lots at certain dates,
Q. Was that kept in the basic file for Potomac Woods?
A. I think so; yes.
Q. Okay. The State would offer it in evidence.
Lamb: I would offer the same objection, your
Honor,
Court: Objection overruled,
Q. Mr. Zentz, some of these notations have X’s through
them, What does that indicate? A. I just when they
were released, I just marked through them so |] wouldn’t
get confused,
Q. Now, can you tell through what date this document
was updated? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What date was it updated? A. It appears to be
updated through April 25, 1972.
Q. 1972, is that what you said? A. That’s right.
Q. Would you look please at Lot 7T. Indicate if there
exists on that list without being x’d out any deeds of trust?
Lamb: Your Honor, | wouid object to the ques
tion from the standpoint that again the document
{318}
A. 176
would speak for itself and in essence they are trying
to ailow him to give an opinion as to what the con
dition of that lot was as to releases and they want
him to testify from the document.
Q. If the Court please, the document, of course,
speaks for itself, but | want certain selected sections of
it only brought to the attention of the jury and he is
merely reading what the document reflects,
Court: I will overrule the objection. You may
testify.
Q. TT. A. This shows...
there is one deed of trust.
Q. Please keep your voice up. A. According to
this, there appears to be one deed of trust that had not
been released as of this date.
Q. What does the notation say? A. It says Lot 7,
Block T, Section 10, Liber 3773, Folio 598, State Na-
tional.
Q. Is that all it says — State National?
is all that says; yes.
Q. Do you know what that instrument is that is re-
ferred to in there? Are you familiar with it? A. |
only noted the deed of trust on here sol....
Q. I understand that. Are you familiar with that
instrument? A. Well, I have seen it before.
Q. Do you know in what amount it was?
offhand,
Q. Okay. With respect to Lot 13T, are there any
un-x’d notations of yours on that? A. Yes.
Q. How many? A. Two.
Q. And what do they say with respect to Lot 13T?
A. They say,... well, no, 1, it is Liber 3773, folio 598,
State National, and the second one is Liber 3797, folio 799,
Lumsden.
. according to this
A. That
A. Not
[482]
[485]
A. 177
Q. With respect, .... by the way, was there check
marks signed here in different colors? What do they in-
dicate? A. I really don’t remember.
Q. Were the x’s x’d with these deeds of trust all put
on there at the same time? A. No.
Q. Were they all put on there in two times or three
times or when? A. It is hard for me to tell. That
thing wasn’t updated after April 25, 1972. That is over
a year ago and I really don’t remember.
= * + = ie
GEORGE YOUNG
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WERNER:
* * * e *
Q. Okay, I show you what is marked for identifica-
tion, State’s Exhibit 20E. A. That looks like the
contract,
Q. Do you have a copy of it? A. Yes.
Q. And would you compare it? A. This is a rati-
fied copy you’re showing me, The first one drawn wasn’t
ratified, and then it was ratified.
Q. Did you later see it ratified? A. Yes.
THE COURT: What do you mean by “‘ratified’’?
A. Accepted by the sellers.
MR. WERNER: Does that appear to be an accurate
copy of it, or an accurate original? A. Yes.
MR. WERNER: I would offer it in evidence.
THE COURT: Is there any objection?
MR. LAMB: Subject to the objection that I raised pre-
trial, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted,
* * * * *
Q. I show you what has been marked State’s Exhibit
3A and ask if you recognize this document. A. This
[486]
A. 178
looks like the settlement statement for the buyer.
Q. Do you have a photocopy of it? A. Yes. The
only thing is, it’s signed by Audrey Young, and ! have
copies that are signed by myself, of the same statement.
Q. Do you recognize your wife’s signature? A. Yes.
Q. That is your wife’s signature on the marked copy?
A. Yes.
Q. And your copies were signed by yourself?
A. Myself. It could have been that at the table I signed
some, and Audrey might have signed some, or Mrs, Young.
Q. That is your signature? A. Yes.
Q. And otherwise conforms to your copy?
MR. WERNER: I offer it in evidence.
THE COURT: Is there any objection?
MR. LAMB: Subject to the same objection, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Well, now —
MR. LAMB: To be quite honest, to preserve the
record — I apologize, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I don’t think it’s necessary;
I think the record is preserved without renewing your
motion. But you’re not contending that there are any
items here that had not been ruled on?
MR. LAMB: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be admitted.
* * * ba *
A. Yes.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.