# Appendix — Tonahill v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0339%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 400 U.S. 943 ## Text UNITED STATES of America ; Vv. Joe H.s TONAHILL. Crim., No. 5737. ‘ United States District Court E. D. Texas, pe - a a ~Beavnont Division. Jan. 14, 1970. MEMORANDUM OPINION AXD ORDER ROB KR TS ee Judge. Tey Defendant ‘is a lawver of wide experience arid reputation, who has resided aml eonducted his legal practice from offices in Jasper, Texas. Within the cea District of Texas, for more than sixteen (16. vears. His practice has been primarily hetgre State no Federal Courts in) Beaumont, Texas. within th: Eastern District? and he has on occasion practiced he- fore courts In Austing Texas. He was iirdieted in Sean Antomo., Texas, on April 14. 1967, within the Western Distriet-of Texas, for three (3) counts-.of tax evasion in vielation. of Section 7207, Titeimal Revenue’ Code. YG TLS.ELAL § 720L alleged to have ceenrred. within the Austin Division of the Wester District of "Posais, ond covering the vears 1960, 1961 and 1962. This ws late on the last day hefore the count for 1960 would he harred by imitation. The ease was-removed by ay pre- priate motion to the Beaumont Division of the Fasters Division of Texas, the Division and District. in which the defendant resides. "Sitting by special designation of Chief Judge, CCA, 5th Cits John R. Brown. er oe Among the various motions filled by (or on behalf of the Defendant, is a motion to suppress certain evidence obtained by the Government on the grounds that such evidence Was obtained through fraud, trickery and de- velit, and on the further grounds that such evidence — was obtained without tirst having given, Defendant the so-called Miranda warnings. Hearings on the motion were held on December 8 3 1968. and July 25, 1969. Con- theting testifnouy was wey from the witnesses as to What transpired at the meetings between Defendant - and his accountant and representatives of the Internal - Revenue Sefviee. L have examined the reeord aud re- solved the coutlicts : because of the conclusivii 1 reach ole the issue’ of fraud, trickery and deceit, 1 do not ‘reach the question of whether Miranda applies to the instant case. , As is usual in eases vf this kind, the investigation hemtteas a civil audit of Defendant’s business by Rev- enue Agent Belschner. Belschner examined Defend- ants books and records from October of 1962, until Mareh of L964. His procedure was to examine what was submitted and veturn the reeords to Defendant or his accountant on a daily basis. The actual examination ot. the records tor each vear in this fashion took approx- imately Jive (9) days, although the ape leered on the case for overca vedar By December -3, 1963, he ne lonszer had any of Defendant's records. Some time prior, io Mareh 10, 1964, he formed a suspicion that Defend- ant had violated Section. 4201. On that date. he referred the case to the Inte Higence Division of Internal Rey- enites Which assigned it to Special Agent Hugh Loven- thal of the Division’s Beaumont office. No contact iwas made between the Revenue. Service and Defendant from January of 1964, until-September of 1904.-On September 1, 1964, Belschner and Loven- PCa a ¥ fe) ‘n — thal met with Defendant and bis accountant. Defend- ant arrived at the meeting ‘early, was introduced to _ Leventhal, outside the presence of his accountant. as a special agent, and Loventhal’stated that he was ‘‘as- signed to conduct a detailed investigation tnto the vears 1960, 1961 and 1962;” that “Mr. Belse ‘hner had discov- € gi what had appeared to be large discrepancies. That vas the reason for my participation in the case.’’ If | such statements were made, and there is testimony ‘in the record to refute even them, they whee. made in a manner to muninize the ‘importance of what was heing said. , \ ani It is obvious from the testimony that neither Defendant nor his’ accountant had any -conception of the significance of the term ‘‘Spec ial Agent.”’ The ac- ‘countant practiced locally in Jasper, had had in bis _ practice only one matter go beyond the Revenue Agent level, and had experience with Revenue personnel from Beaumont only when they came to Jasper to help a ~» Jocal agent on civil matters. Defendant had. no experi- ence in tax matters whatSvever. Wiiat is more important, in my opinion, is that the . Agents must have known that the Defendant and his accountant did not understand that the audit or inves- _ tigation was criminal. Defendant and his accountant were apprehensive enough—hecause of the length of _ time involved in the investigation—to ask both Mr. Belschner and Special Agent Loverithal on the several oceasions- When thev met, what the 'v were doing, why the audit was taking so long, and whether fraud was involved. Not once did sos ees ee in the. affirma- tive that “fraud” or a ‘‘erime”’ was involved. Instead, they stated their function was to reconcile the large discrepancies, to see if they were the result of innocent errors. The Agents testified that they ‘also told De- ee AS a fendant that ther were trying to determine {f he had - attempted to ‘*deteat”’ the tax, or “evade” the tax. De- fendant and his accountant both deny that such state- ments were made. Assuming, howev er; that they were, they were coupled with consideyable conversation con-. cerning legitimate deductionis inissed by the Defend-. Jant but picked up hy them, and-errors made bv the Defendant in favor of the Government: Such evasive- ‘hess by the Agents in the face of direct questions from the — constitute affirmative fraud, trickery and deceit. Especially is this so when the Age ants kne Ww, or should have known, by the actions and repeated questions of Defendant and his accountant, that they did. not. understand the nature of the investigation, Mere Was reason, ‘tin. for the Siacues Rania to Keep the criminal investigation a secret ‘from Defeni- cunt. "They knew Defendant’s reputation as‘a lawyer: they knew he had expertise in the criminal’ tield ; and they knew, as Defendant testitied, that any description of the j inv vestigation as being criminal in natute would: cut off their supply of information—whic h wats viven with the full and eomple te cooperation of the Defend- wut aud his accountant. And even within furty-tive (45 ditys’ of the“receipt of these records, atid before any further contact was made with Def endant, the Special Agent had submitted doc ‘uments to the Office of the > samuner of Questioned Doc uments for analvsis. The. daw ‘iments submitted cone erned the same matter whit ‘hy had. tirst aroused Belse hner’s S SUSPicions. Nor can tliere be any ‘areument that the iivestiga- tlon Was notca criminal investigation? While Loven- -thal’s eredentials'as a “Special Agent’? do not sv state, “he testified that he was a member of the Inte ‘Iligence Division, and that a correct. description of “his fune- tions would be to ‘senforce the erimin: il statutes’’ ap- -~— A-4 — See oo plicable to income tax laws. He further testified that -he was instructed in 1967, tu thereafter warn taxpay- ers of the criminal nature of the investigations and the \; taxpayer’s rights under. the fifth and sixth amend- ~ ments, even though his dutjes do not appear to have changed after 1967. Without quoting from the record ‘in detail, itis clear, and I so find, that Defendant and - his accountant did not realize at least until Defendant: emploved a lawver in the summer of 1965, that a erim- inal investigation was being conducted, that the Agerits knew that Defendant and his accountant did not know » the nature of the Investigation, and that tliey deliber- ately hid the fact that the investigation was criminal. ‘Even the Government’s counsel admits that sueh he- havior eonstitutes, fraud, tricker v and deceit. [2.3] There have bins no ‘Fifth Cireuit cases that - have dealt with the precise issue in question—namely. that frand, trickery and deceit will be.grounds for a toetion fo suppress.in an income tax fraud case, Two case in point, however, are United States v. Prudden. “5 F.Supp. 110 (M.D. Fla. 1969 \: and Goodman v. United States, 285 F.Supp. 245 (C.D. Cal. 1968). White. the evidenee.of affirmative deceit is*different.in each of the eases, in each as in this ease, there was a failure to explain that a criminal investigation was in progress (ora failure to explaip the distinction Hetween spi cial” and “revenue’’ agents), edupled with affirmative netion by: the Agents resulting in jner imthating actions heing taken by: the taxpayer. In- this case. the affirma- tive action was the concealment of the nature.of the inv estigation, the refusal of the Agents to. tell Defend- ant and his accountant that: a eriminal Jinv estigation was underway when.specifieally asked, and the de lib- crate attempt to hill Defendant and. his accountant in- to cooperating with the Agents: See Stuart v. Vnited — A-5 — ™* ” States, 416 B.2d 459° (oth Cir. 1969). In this. connec-: "tion, L point out that a lawyer-defendent in a tax: fraud case is held to no higher duty of knowledge of the tax = and procedure than any other defendant, Bursten . United States, 395 F2d 976 {5th Cir. 1968), and aire be expected to kiicw the difference between a - “revenue”? and “special”? agent. If he is: a criminal lawyer, however, he knows enough not to waive his | constitutional rights in the course of a criminal inves- tigation. U ntil he knows the investigation is criminal _in nature, however, he has no opportunity to utilize his knowledge. The agents were fully aware of Defend-_ ant’s background; antl deliber: itely \hid the nature of _ the investigation. | | \ Accordingly, 144RANT the motion to suppress all evidence. received by the Special Agent ‘from the De- _ fendant or: his accountant, and all evidence obtain&l _ through leads from evidence so obtained, or as a result of information given by Defendant or his accountant: to the Spec ‘ial Agent, including within my order all- evi- dence re- submitte “1 to the Special Agent even: though originally obtained prior thereto. I re alize that some of ~~ “the evide nee was examined by Belsehner prior to the en-— ’ trv of the Spee ial Agent, It is. obvious from the record, however—the time lapse between the date. of last COH- inet by Belsehner alone and first contact by Special Agent, Loventhal, the method of audit used by Belse h- ner, aud the lengthy investigation of more than two . and one-half (214) years made hy the Spee ial Agent after the matter was referred to him—that the Spe cial Agent made his own “investigation from the material submitted to him, and that the information obtained in the coufse of the civil audit was not used in the criminal investigation. Furthermore, if suppression of evidence obtained through the behavior of the Agents — A-6 — of evading taxes due the United States. On taxpayer's’ - motion made prior te trial the court below in a blanket ie eae all statements made and all corporate eud personal deciments furnished by Rrudden to a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service, together: with all evidence obtained tygough ‘or as ao result. of sue im statements or docuniente ay evidence, Suppression. was} based ona ti nding thet. the internal Revenue Serv- “lee jhad obtained such statements and doemments by envaving ina deliberate scheme to deceive: | “ede ni order to prevent | his undé rstanding that an investiga- tion or ivinally commenced by a revenue agent had ma- terially. altered vat the time the special agent entered ©. the ease.” The U nited States. chose ‘to appeal the sup- pression order rather than to proceed to trial without the evidence thus suppressed, Since the record does, 305 F. “Supp. 110 (M.D: Fla. 1969). — AAG — uf - he a . \e _ . 7 ° ote 7 net clearly and conyincingly de »monstrate a deliberate se me eme-to deceive and we-reject the tax} VCS. COU- tention that ne Wiis entitled to Miranda WwW: irhings, We a + Oe Verse. ‘Yhe followina, facts’ i ike cither wnidisprted or are stated Inost faverably to thet axpaver. On Mav 10, 1963. certain returns of The Florida € orporation of Amer- CPCA) and its subsidiaries were assigned to Rev- cnue Ngent Lexow for the: purpose of determining the c erecknens of the tax reported. At this time Lexow seen With the Internal Revenue Service about one ' a Fie wis still in training and was not a full-erad: agent. Pruddemawas 50 vears of ave. al inw ‘school erad- vate re then cimployed as a security analyst for 2 theniber firm of the New York Stock Exctange: Afte lenrning that FCA was to be examined, Prudden tele; rconed tex ‘xow at the Palm Beach office of the Internai Revenue Serviee from his home i in Connecticut, stating teat he was’a director of FCA. He inquired if Lexow’s “wcunination was to cover FCA alone or its subsidii Aries ne rand further asked. if the exanunation was routine. . it ow replied that the examination would caver both ~ 1% © and its subsidiaries and that it was not routine ; vo jue returns had been seleeted: in Jacksonville. t ‘is examined and had been-assigned to Lexow frot: « . o ; : Pa, ‘there, ie eee | The exainination actually conimenced on Mav mt wire i Lexow contacted Mrs. Anne G. Smuth. who was ated on the: returns to be fhe pres sident of these cor moneaane? All of Lexow’ s subsequent examinations . wa . . . eal m ‘ => . . , ; zs " + - P C CUE PEPE eT segs a l tat XgWes eXopiuattti: Léxow, once te ome era, | toe Prudde n that the Internal Reveme rvitwould 7 "never leave hi t alone tintil he cae eee records: : aes r Research and Development. Lid. Prudden, took the n Ay ree Ss Fes: thi iT Suc! h rec meds did ‘riot have to be produced . and. as stated? he never produce a them, On one ocea- . “ : sion when Lexew raised a question os to constmetive th . ownership with | rudgden, Pin dden told Leacw not. to : z e attenint Te tell} Leas nt the Lities ot eonustructiHte own- se 4 * . 7 2 ° a) ] b 4 - - } 7 } B > E Te “% ¢ P t Psilhh, Thal th eae L dhe4al CCT J i= SPrcciaity it} law “*~%@ FY . "ot ¥ e x 6 7 " ws 5 F - school and he find : studied i tor tiree Vears “On sev=- “* * . oY “aS ae Ye, Rearek Tear ees ‘e , @ Fal ‘tislons = TU iden: fold” LOW OW, That. he, -Lexow, fo 4 quite ee eae =” apm is¢- -4 3 : } ° Wiis simply on re nshing. eXpeanlon Vihe .ohiv. To : *T he:)* Ts t ig #13 * 2 Now le ° * > . z tikit Ne Ww. is eit With The Qi tems Were ; ’ By oes - . A ° 5 es : Pane sincicrn “out Of CONTAENGAN order. te ott: A liis Wit - o> * a+ Gen ee } 4 a —_ P. 1 4 Chiilons as UbLLal ana eT [ hs} é a. oP } Tey Ott... a“ - *s . = ee . : : 7 & i ; 1 , ) . + ? 7 ? ,. } . . z idl t aafa frequent \V a FACwd . { i e'} yes Re vere £ f ‘ . ay SeIvice 's views hut ladel MeVEY Pecon testisie auswet 9 ‘ . ‘ - nae } j 2th , : . age ee : ot anv kind. He further ofersd reew With Agent * ad . - if 841-8, .4 : + a - - 3 > - Be STalit WALLEY COMECNT t : ~ Ee a Sg £3 ke 7 > pth re eS os ne * 54 ; ere > wees - é f Ndr be Sait’ Le! des The supimn > GRStS SUSRNNeCG * * . , etatcec +} ; ; ‘ 7 ’ e (fit i tad IWitles of iit alii i Ti t W et = ‘ , H be : : . Ba . ] A : : V0 oN aa Previovsive requested j * e . ‘ ry . 7 © Ft sneer ar Ty" i ‘ oes t oe Bs * ] 7 *.) Say Spey = ~ , - ° Peers, 8 | ee Ptewhery 13. 1963, R CNUE AV2¢ , OWIs i, oy Deets = » 7 } j Pe . Stanle wrete Pig LLC] 282117 TiN 1) Ohe- : é oe . - . _ . toh ? +} ' ts -: ase > ae ee ] of : “STanier opened the meeting they ideutited tl eTasclyves ss . rr jE ip “de® . . eo Aeeee” ibe } . . to Prudden aca special agent ‘and «= revenue agent ¥e- wticely anA h sedi hi thar 1 e9 .. ee speeTiVervy., ane showed. him the Po WPriltten credentials oe 2 te . * i ‘ that-he did ngt know the signitic ance of Cohen's ace nation as special agent. They informed Prudden that ther were thete to make an audit and eNatnination of his returns, the returns ofNhis three sons and the re- tins of FCA andcits tight’ stibsidiaries dle was ‘also Rey: vol that. the e ‘Xamimation would inelude any other cor- . “poration, oF ‘wift tax returns that he had filed. Neither Stanle vy nor Cohen ever stated: to Prudden that ae rim- inal investiv: tien was being eondueted oy that the in- vestigation they were ninking 4vas boing made to dé termine the possibility of fraud. P rudden was never siven any Swaening nor was he ‘ever ndyis ed that he hod’ a -right to remain silent or that ’ any iiforni: abion furnished by hita could’ be used -against htm nm any subsequent. proe eodings. All. acthans and procedures: followed by Stanley a Cohen were in, accord )with what was then the Internal Revenne Service's stand- | ard procedure in such cakes. a On December 21, 1964, Revemie wos Startley and . Special Agent ( ‘ohe n intervie wed Prudden.at the In, > * vernal tevenne Sefvice Titelligene e Division office. oe len answered the questions asked him but refused + Callow the conver sation to be, recorded. All other. peivease between, Prude ai and the ikS vgents. were Jat Prod dens office at his convenienee during regular business hotus. The work of Spee ‘ial Agent Cohen and ., Agent. Stanley ex tended over a period of some: fifteen . J nouths. Prudden persisted in refusing: revords of the Bah: unt i corporation and records outside the vears - he felt we re properly open. Tle continied to complain | that the agchts were fishingeand criticized third-party investigations, but he also continued toe HOPpel rave with- in these limits-with- the agents’ requests for informa tian and records during the entire period, | ct v ee ee “ e 7 . I. NECESSARY WARNINGS AND ADVICE Prudde nn conte ads that. the evidence obtamed after “Spec ‘ial Agent Cohen entered the. investigation ust - be suppressed because he, Prudden, was uot. warned and ‘advised of his rights according to Mir ynda v. ASi- . zona, 384° U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 16022 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We a ee to our prior rulings and reject this > contention. Towever, the Supreme Ceurt’s ruling in - Mathis v. United States 391 U.S. 1. 88 S:Ct. 1: 303. 20° - *L.bd.2d 381 (1968) reversing this court and holding ‘that. routine tax investigations are not imunune from the Miranda requirements for warnings to be given to aoe a person in custody,and two recent deci ‘islous from the Seventh Circuit which reach a result’ contrary: to ours | . here! indicate that we make a detailed review of: ‘this a ae. ‘issue, . | , | -A ree urrence & tosthe, constitutional found. itidhn is al- a a eee _—*atthrough the evidence | in sialon was obtained. ‘pr ior to the decision in Miranda, the Supreme Court applied-that de- cision to persons whose trials td not begun as of June’153, _1966, regardless of when the ‘alleged constitutional infirmity occurred. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S..719, 734, 86 S.Ct! 1772, 1781, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). In Jenkins v. Delaware, 395 U.S. 213, 89 S.Ct. 1677, 23 L.Ed.2d 253 (1969), the\Court . limited the retroactiv ity of the rule by ‘refusing to app it to retrials commenced after the date of the decision even fthough _, the original trial preceded Miranda. It is appr opriate /to_here —~—_—___-___ - , note that the District Court—was- under the - ‘impression that. - ‘ Prudden did not ‘rely.on Miranda and the order suppressing» evidence was expressly declared to be independent of any’ . + application of Miranda to the instant case. The constitutional ; dimensions of that-rule and the fact that this cause must be demanded for further proceedings where the point. night he - raised, indicate that we should rule on it. now. : “United States v. Dickerson; 413 F. od. yi (7th Cir. 1969), and United States v. Habig, 413 F.2d 1108 (7th Cir. 1969), . cert. den., 396 U.S. 1014, 90 S.¢t. 559. 24 L.£d.2d 506° (1970). . «(The Miranda issue was not presented to the Court in the Application for Writ of Certiorari.). -Seé also United States . v. Campione, 416 F.2d 486.(7th Cir. 1969). . fa Ways aQ appropriate beginning polat. The Fifth Amendments mandate is that no person-shali be “*eom- : — in any erimiial case to be a wethess agalust hinn- So: ai at eta Compulsion, ul “requisite to the: invoe ation of the Amendment’s pfotection: against self- inerimination, was nét attenuated in Miranda. The ma jority opinion ~in Miranda is complex and lengthy hut the following pertinent extracts highlight the prodlenf preseuted and explain the controlling principles, Tn the prefaee the =e Ke ourt pitomized the ‘decision’s meaning thusly : Pte Our*holding will he spelled out with some ‘speci- ficity in the pages which follow but brietly Stated it is this:. the prosecution may not use’ statements, whether exeulp: itory or inculpatory, stemming fromy¢ uustodial interrogation of the defendant mn- -, dess it demonstrates the use of procedural sate-- . guards effective to secure the privilege against self- — inertmination. By custodial interrogation, wenean "questi ioning initiated by: law enforcement officers after a> person has ‘heen taken into custody or otherwise: ‘de J bs ived of his freedom of ae tion i anny significant way. ‘ 6, Part . began with the following paragraph: “The coustitutional issne-we decide in each of these cases is the. admissibility of statements ab- tained ‘from a defendant questioned while Wy eUs- “tody or otherwise deprived of hiss freedom of action iwany signifieant way. Di each, the defend- ant was questioned hy polic e-officers, det tectives. ora proseenting attorney in a reom in whieh ‘he was cut off froni the outside world. In none of these " cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the inéerroga: - tion process. "In all the cases, the “questioning elteited oral admissions, and ih three of them, 2. Ko A284 | in San (384 US. at HH, 86 S.Ct at 1612, es po — signed statenie nts as we IL which were admitted at. their trial=. Fhev alt thus share salient features— iMcommunicads interrogation of inglividuals in 9. police-dominated atmosphere, Hoe iy ‘in -self- - - Inerininating state ments without full Warnings of constitutional rights.’ (384 US: at AND, 86 S.C t. at 1612 2 : The Court continued Dv pointing-out that sophistie dited pve hologic al te c hyiques had Been deve loped by pole en to supplant the oft condenmed use of physical Toree. to extort confessions, the.key to which called for iso- F aut ing Suspects from familiar surroundings and friends hi distilled the ne w tee liniques this wav: : on 0 rom these representative samples of inter- rogation tec hniques.the setting prescribed hy the neumals and observed’ inypractice becomes lear. | In essenee, it is this: To be alone with the subject ix essential to prevent distraction and to de- prive him of any oatside support. The aura of eni- “ i dence in his guilt undermines Ins will to resist. ft », / s y (384'U.S. at 455, 86 S.Ct. at 1617 ‘ meer 4 . ta coneluded’ thusly; “Tiveach Of the cases, the ‘defe ndant Was thr rst. tito an untamiliar atmosphere and ry three) menae ne police interrogation prog ‘dures! 21] Phe fotenti: ality for conipulsion is ‘fore ‘epally apparent, © *. Tt is obvious’ that such an dfterrogation en- V ironmant ix created for. ho purpose other than to subjugate the individual ‘to tye will of his ex: iD}! -iner. This atmosphere « carriés its own hadee of ‘intimidation.’ z 8 : ; as BSE US. at 457. 86°S.Ctoat 1618) | ie Port IT traced the history of the privilege, its embodt- tent in our ‘onstitfttion and its subsequent .court im- ple ment: itions down through Escobedo, ‘ Hlinois. 3B . va aree tae — A-25 — : sy USO478. 84 S.01.-1758, 12 1. Ed.2d 977 (1964), with -this applicition of the latter’s ratioriale: . The entire thrust of police interrogation there, | asin all the cases today, was to put the defendant’ in such dn emotional state as to tmipaiy his capacity: for’: ational judgment. "The abdication of the con- stitutional’ privilege—the choice on bis part te “speak to the police—was-not made knowin!) oF competently because of the-failure to apprise him: | | of his sights ;.the compelling atmosphere of the ine - “4 * custody interrogation, and not an independent cle- cision on his part, catised the detendi unt ta speak?’ (R84 TLS. at 463: 86 _ at 1623) aie : ae D Part LIT demonsty ater how the rule announced was to he emploved and detailed the: justification for tend- ering ap attorney's advice. It ehosed with. this vaveat: “Our decision is not: intended to Svige r the ‘aditional. function of police officers -im-itivesti- pele crime. See: Extobedo v. St a of Pfmets, 78 Us. 478, 4924 84 S.Ct. 1758.° 1765. When an individual is In “custody san. probable cause? the police miy, of course, seek out evidence in the field tobe used at trial AGAINST him. Such investigation ‘nay “Inchide inquiry of persons not unde ree straint. General on-the-seene questioning &= to facts surréunding. a crime or other general ques tioning of citizens in the fact-finding process is net affeeted by our holding. It is an act of vesponsills « ‘itizenship for indiv iduals to give Whatever infor- - mation they mav have to aid in law enforcement. An such situations the compe ‘Wing atmosphe re ip- herent in the process of in- - ustody inte rrogation ts not necessarily prese nt - e ““The distinction and its significance has been pore de-— - . scribed in the opinion of a Scottish court; ‘Ins former times such questioning, if ‘undertaken, would be & ‘conducted by police officers visiting the house or place of busi- > ness Of the suspect and there questioning him, probably in — A-26— : mee dealing With sfateme nt. - « 4 ie, comples Geet ionirke of widespiread ‘daily adini iiistrative contacts between ¢ itizens: and government officials, such a holding’ would open a veritable Pandora's box. When a census taker returns to recheck inforniation, he has received or a building inspector comes to investigate a report of: noncompliance with provisions of the city. housing. code or a game warden ‘who hears oe out-of-seasonsstops a man he finds in the woods oD hank examiner.questions a teller whose figijres are sin of balatice. would each then. have to give ille Miranda warnings ? In each case a governme ntal official is cou- frontiig a’ citizen and. criminal] charges may Result. There are a thousand and one administrativ e Inquiries. “youtinely inde. every day.in every eity which could : evoke responses that might form part of the hasis mm _ proof for a charge of perjury, falsification of records, failure to file a re port of “perform & legal duty or otligr criminal conduct. Most of these routine adininistratipe confrontations would he rende red j itie frective to the cit- ° ba izen and his goverment by imposing Miranda require. ments. Indeed. if the warning: beeame toa commen- place. the very purpose of its requirement could be. idndorinined If “autherity”” were allowed to supplant: Ss custody—the deprivation of freedom) —as the determi-_ nant of compulsion, even these toutine field investiga. tions which Viranda expressly exempted: ‘nuist. fall. © Under sucharule a policeman Upon stepping a moter- ist could: not ask to see hisv license without waging | - him and advising him’in full’ It is not for this. Court -to so extend Miranda: and welare partic ‘ulavdy wnwill- ing to; extend it to an adult experienc ed businessmn: atl, "Cf. United States y. Marlow, 423 F. 2d 1064 ( sth Cir. 1970). where a routme request for a driver’s license made without -Miranda .warnings produced a. wrongfully acquired credit card that led to the driver’s s conviction for obstructing the - mails. “So wee apt Bary: pe ites. f° - , A295 2 pax oe iets Ah eae “ > ; mee ys \ : “6 a law schoo! eradtate,-who ‘for ove es Tut voluntarily. furnishd selected corporate and personal records do titx agents-snot claimed, to be overbearlng but over: tg ln AERO a . : ms 3 The eee sliows that Prudden’s interviews with all the bgents were on venerally amieable terms—what | Pruddetr described: asl ‘ta normal business arrauge- went.” KI liniited the{information he gave the agents, seciical refusing fo give them requested iiforui- tion froni\vears not underexamination and the regords of the Bahamian subsidiary, He testified that he was “never threatened, He even testified that: Lexow once told him that the futemal Revenue Servies would not eave him alone unless he produced the sathamiian com- : pany records, vet he never produced then. There was simply no fagtual support for a contention that Prud- don avwas put ti such an emotional state as, to cumpatr Ee. . + 8 F ons \ é . ; * 3 his’eapaeity for rathonal judgment. »There are other incongruities in Dickerson. Tt purports to —~ apply Mathis but admittedty. does not uses Mathis’ standard, | “ Mathis a routine ¢Xamination by 2 reguiar revenue agent ° i rior to any referehcé of the case to the {ntelligence Division. ef the Revenue Service. was voided. Dickerson does not apply’ this rule, it adniits incriminations by. the taxpayer produced by the regular agept and gnly suppresses infoymation ob- - + \ined after the case had been transferred to the Intelligence | Division. Since Mathis did, not Yretognize any distinction be- ‘tween the regular and special agent, the compulsive effect of . the ngent’s, official status. Is idéntical. Uhless ‘the regulations ° of the-Internal Revenue Service are changed or United States _v. Heffner, infra n. 12, is not followed, Dickerson will have no effect as precedent. Prior to-its rendition, the Revenue Service adopted a regulation requiring spegal agents, to give Miranda. tyne. warnings on their first contatt with taxpayers. In recogmitien of the fact: that Dickerson represented ,a de- . parture frora the present state of the. law, the court deter- mined that its Holding would only apply to interrogations tak- ing place after the date of the decision... Thus: only Dickerson And the taxpayer in the companion case of Habig will be at- facted. If Prudden’s case were now ptesented to that circuit he would get\no benefit from that ruling since the investiga- tions here involved.took place in 1963.and 1964, . op aly he | o— A-30— . ‘ ° ’ G . . .¥ * : Pe Mareover. there is no evidence that the ineriniinating ee x ee - 7 - evidence was coerced as a matter of law: i.e. was the @ result of in-enstody interrogation or anything ‘ap- 8 preaching comparadle pressures. None of the evidence What Prndden seeks to stiypress was obtained whtle he re eas under arrest’or underaiuuay sort of detual or implied restraint. Tn fact, Pandden’s fraud, deceit.and trickery contentions strongiy militate against any thought of presstre. The bi sie thrus! of this other contention is that the agcnts Wwere too nice to him. He was never deprived Of his freedom in anv significant wav during the questioned interviews, all but one of which took place at his own Office at his convenience during reg- ular office hours.” The Oe interview which occufred % [ ' dete \ oe ~The Supreme Court in Miranda) defined custodia gation to mean, questioning initiated by law enforcen\ent offi- cers after a person has.been taken into custody ‘or otherwise ‘deprived of-his freedom in any significant way. The Court also emphasized that the “salient features” of the cases there decided showed “incommunicado interrogation of individuals ina police-cominated_ atmosphere.” 348 U.S. at 445, 86 S.Ct. at 1912. *:* e y ae . “Werrecognize that custodial interrogation can occur beyond the confines of the station house. For example, in Orozco v. . Texas, 894°U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L-Ed.2d.311r (1969), the Court applied Miranda to incriminating evidence obtained. * by questioning the suspect in his-own room in a boarding. house. The suspect was alone and in the custody of four police officers who questioned him. Under those circumstances, Oroz- co was held-to be signifi¢antly deprived of his freedom. But Orozco merély stands for the rule that “a compelling atmos- phere” can exist outside of the station house, it does not hold that any inquiry by a: government official carries-sech an ele- - mentf intimidation as amounts to compulsion. to self-incrim- ination. The majority opinion emphatically states: “We do not, as the dissent implies, expand or extend to the slightest ex- tent our Miranda decision.” See also United States v. Lackey, 413 F:2d 655 (7th Cir. 1969), where a recorded courthouse basement interrogation of: the taxpayer alone was held to be within Miranda's ambit.-No comparable ‘significant depriva- tion of freedom or compelling atmosphere ever existed in the case naw before us. ° ; : Ra en A nie RR tess ra) interro- . % . . x ‘ ‘i { ‘a if, is - vk P , in 2 ° ° ‘ . ', . { et é ‘ me fo Ss : ’ a y ‘ ay ' / f. i 4@. J re 8 ‘ s ; Jes Ge he ca P . i ‘ : j . ‘j § . ‘ . Fe e ' i ar i ’ ® > d vv ° | ip j . ie ‘ ° ts 3 . Js , y f , Gs; e s = 7 s ‘j ° if : i és . ; / j i F Lu f*. : ‘ oe ie , ‘ : 4 ) | ‘ ’ / ‘ ' ; i P, | ’ ‘ ' . “i : . 4 ; . ¢ j eo) ‘ / . ; ar es i nw ‘ i 4 an / . . i d H ! ‘ Ss iy hy Ps = e , / ry * if, - j / A eh he aie. i ~ / oe... Fis ‘ tT . 3 j iM j ‘ . ' : ae | : ' ; / ; oT] a yee ; “4 é ; 4 , teh he yi, * be . ’ r . . ey : - P ‘ ‘ | f { , . ‘ ‘ by ‘ d ‘ d J PA ¢ : re t (oe, a iy } eS ae | ' , , ‘apo 4 P , 2 DPMS Bee eee 4 ae JS yy (=f / Hs * y > as, ‘ , 2 i > f " : js ! uw ry te : ‘ Bs itl » .% > . . ‘9 ff * c " , U j ’ et a | , ’ ba ‘ f ' er ' vy f , ’ j « ¥ yee ft i e r,t ’ ‘ ee e : e x e = . - J . e . . 3 wy . - i t . . al e . AP a 9 A . e . . x . . 2 5 aoa . ( " $ « » a ) PVF +309 } +437 > 221% , . " zs “ REAL CLR LG ‘ ‘ ae a | “a5 © hae a * 3 pte ; ‘tes . ~ a ° 7 they +! } «ene ~R, +* . “ ! + - pis 4 } i\ } ‘ } a : . if \ ui oF Me. = Me é ‘ § a aX a - 7 ‘ } P i6é 3 - ‘ x } » 1 \ ’ ~ fe had fOr STVen = t- . - : > > . ‘Shas a o . 1 \ pits \\ } A tESCet ta “ee i ~ Gi ¢ . > ’ 4 ¥ ales , : % Bee 7 oi ot p33 : ial Ss cdhesj Mea f Tne = * Sa : - Sean cain se Ty ‘ e._ st rr 7 se; 5 : +5 tht ; } j } +4 ‘ ST TH eUstoty ated i Wirsnde de Pine .ap e 7 . . . . . “2 , > be i i ae 2 ~ ‘ ++ 7 ca 71> | Li» }}}- STV Thhe Tragca : A ruanken seeks 3 «2 bn > : = e 7 : eMinewish Ades s hieeius Spee avent: did ‘ sta : elo : or , + L ae tT Fbyas. $397 So 3 a 4 eo “s +} +" : =. ? . ‘ Wats 13) ry] esto ntre 4 4S ee "ft? 3) TTeEn ited Yh *F 4a? ? ; ‘a +] ley. +} eo; wt TAs ] = Mieke Wb WHISSes Che CY PUST oy al NotdmMe—the . ’ 2 aed - SE ene Poe ere Ce aAGe Pah ke ESO Fe . aver Was NOT in eakstody PoMMaer eanpuision when oe art} aati we ie a eee Tes Se Doak Cl ee . PVIGW Too Debate In United S ates vi Jernioan, ! . Wy RA 251. (x0, Ol. [hare 3 77S : ad 401 (oth Cir. ceft. dea. 296 U.S. 027 a0 ~ eb e,3 hs : - Deer 7 , Ps Pf Miraivge warnings. Prudden’s 2ttemnpt lis. oF Se poem Niulsessn eh “yf SSA Sele , a Be . we . = ’ Jf = oe Ae i! W “s re Ag 127% Ane eee : c 9: Py * : “ ve may have limited effect as precedent fon the same reas Coned In note.&. supra, Sines May of 1967 the _ ’ ITS Nar -} 8p lea ~ 90 Vea9 aN _ . > | ~ . 7 i 2 Service has required S Decia | Agents to'give ‘ . ’ ? Q/ ae - , ‘ ule - @ Wat? MSS 211i se | iH € ce at thgir in- *. oWiterence. See I.R.S. News Release TR-o%: 9 41969 COHs Lax Rptr.¢6946). The Fourth Circuit has recentiv held ac Mr eett VAI Ve WS, = ft + a sf he . . ~ - > . cme eee-9 z a e IRS. is ! ft compiv with its own ute on thé 2 ~~ : . ~. wie, ae - 3 3: ee . . == of United St X rer. Aecardi v. Shaughnessy. vat Ss Pe = 4 ~ 4 > 7 - - ‘. e ws OU. ¢4 ee, ; zs Ed. B81 (16 54). Uni ed States v Tatnar 490 ‘ 2. 44h . aed ener, 420 F.2d 809 “(4th Cir. 1969). Since this question is ; > > ? wine es . F ? . : + had a duty to do more or less under the ps inelige mislead Prudden as -to the function of ¥ diselosed by this ree ord, ‘ ar [7] Prudden points to the failure of Special Agent « » Cohen to tell him that his function was ‘to investigate for criminal fraud. Afl Cohen wh required to do by, the then existing Internal Revenue Service required, et nents was to tell Prudden that he w a@a Special Agent and show Prudden his credentials. This he did. He in Ho‘way concealed his true identity. He could not have the\intelligence Division or.as to the’duties of a special avent, since ne ‘ither- of “thesé subjects were ever dis- cussed. Silence cauonly he equi ated with fraud whe re there is a legal Jor ‘moral ‘duty: to speak: or where ar inquiry: left unanswered would be intentionally mis- leading.” None of these 4 factors were pr ese ‘ut here... [n Spahr v. United States; supra note 21, one ground of taxpayer's appeal of. his convietion for corporate - tax evasion was that ineriminating, evidence Was pro- tured through guile and fraud. Allegediv the revenue agetits fraudulentky Concealed the true purpose of their investigation, As in the- instant CASE, two agents me rely identified thémselvet as a speetal age nt and a revenue agent, respectively, without: giving “duny additional warnings. The Ninth Cireuit ee nod dece ption. {uot- ing the Second Circuit’s opinion in U nited, States v: Se ‘lafani, supra. note 21, ‘they said: “A ee, trax investigation apeay commenced *See United States v. Sclafani, 265 F.2d 408 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 360 U.S. 918, 79 S.Ct. 1436, 3 L.Ed.2d 1534 (195 9) ; c. f., Avery v. Cleary, 132 U.S. 604, 10 S.Ct. 220, 33 L.Ed: 469 (1890) ; Atilus v. United States, 406 F.2d 694, 698 (5th Cir. 1969) ; American Nat’! Ins. Co., ete. v. Murray, 383 F.2d 81 (Sth Cir. 1967). "409 F. 2d at 1306, quoting, 265 F.2d at 414- Ale Axe A-38 =e > _as such is devoid-of stealth or deceit because the ordinary. taxpayer surely knows that there is in- bs herent in it a warning that the government’s agents oth ol pursue evidence of misreporting without re- gard to the shadowy line between avoidance and... evasion, mistakt® and willful omissiom.”’ | In Sclafani, as in the instant case, ‘the taxpayer db- jected that records obtained from him after the ‘rou- tine audit”’ commenced by a revenue agent was turned over to a special agent should have- been suppressed because they were obtained throngh stealth and deceit. The court found no fraud or deceit and stated:"” “co “Phe Fourth. Amendment does not require more |, than this, that when. his consent is sought the tax- payer be apprised of the government’s” concern . with the accuracy of his reports. and’therefore of such hazards as may be incident to a voluntary disclosure. We-hold that Selafani was to apprised by the warning inherent ini the request When Agent Sonkin identified himself and -disclosed his pur- pose to audit certain returns of the corporation. ’’ ~ [8] We conclude that the mere failure of a revenue agent (be he regular or special) to warn the taxpayer that the investigation may result in criminal charges, absent any acts by the agent which materially misrep- resent the nature of the inquiry, do not- constitute fraud, deceit and trickery. Therefore, the’ record here - must disclose some affirmative misrepresentation to es- tablish the existence of fraud, and this showing, must he elear and, convincing.” tie | | “265 F.2d at 415. See United States v. Squeri, 398 F.2d 785. 788 (2d Cir. 1968): “[T]he information that a taxpayer’s returns are under audit gives notice of the possibility of crim- inal prosecution regardless of whether the agents contemplate civil or criminal action when they speak to him.” ° *Jett v. Zink, 362 F.2d 728, 729: (5th Cir. 1966), cert. den.. Chamberlain v. Zink; 385 U.S. 987, 87 S.Ct. 597, 17 L.Ed.2d ‘448 (1967). °, Cra ead ABO a «3 n . Pridden points to several incidents to esti ablish the existence of affirmative misreprese ntations by the Line ternal Revenue Serv ice agents. He does not in any of . these, however, establish fraud by clear and ¢ onvine ing orodf, rather the ev idle nee te ‘nds to. show th: it fraud was. +n “present. Rays é; vi Audit: and KE amination. rudden seeks te distin- eatsh Spal and Sc dafani beeause in_those cases no ‘efirmative acts of misre spresetitation were shown. On- Aine other liatnt. Vrudden claims that ‘Chen's state-" poet ntaat the hearing that ‘we informed Mr. P vitden. thi it we had come ‘for an audit and examination o! bhi 7~ returis—his son’s returns, and the retiins of the Flor a ( ‘orporation of America and its: eight subsidiar ies" was affirmative misrepresent ition in the case at bar: Telling P rudde n that a audit and ex: ain: tion were ‘to trike plac eis not dece ptive. That is exactly what the agents di. They aniite “land examined his books. Phat in so doing they uneevere “dime riminating ev idene C docs wot change the character af the investigation they un-- oe Audit and ex: mination is but one means of gathering evidence ina tax fraud case, Since the a: werits did not have to warn him diree tly that they were Wwyt- dert Kine a erimiinal investigation, then teHing him the means by whieh they were te eather evidence in. ne way is pitsleadine. - Letters from he LOW to Prudde nv. Prudden, cote nds fhat fhe two letters: from Lexow fraudulently misrep- “resented the nature of the inquiry. The. July 9th letter. which’ was. writte n-before the Intelligence Division ame inte the ease but while Lexow was pre paitines to Yefer it to them.asked Prudden to send records of one of FC A’s subsidiaries to finn order to facilitate his | \ 7" go: \ R i> \ PY - se - \ * ~ ~~, s ° a &. - “mination and to save Prudde n time.” There are uc: nesrepresentations off faet/ in the letter. Even if the ietter had been misteadins, Vrudden coniplains of ns cvidence obtained asia result of it. In fact, the record ‘Coes ast show that We ever complied with the letter”: request. F urthermore, the trial court's suppre SSTOR or- only applied to fidence abt; ained on or after se __- tritst wt Tt 2 full nu uth aftoy the writ tthe rt na etn The ‘seeond le tter was written an ‘Mies 23> tw Wi" ‘eks after the referral of the ease to-the Intelligence Division without advising him-of anv change Th ‘the reture of the - jnvestivation.- There, Is ne eV lence ot sule by Lexow. He- testified that he was only COnSET. entions Iv trying to lernve a coinplete record of al] the Fiets he dtd prev iously aceummulated for his successor. Tre documents he requested: were those whieh, Pr udden hi i alteady authorized him to copy. but he had inad- vertenthy left: them in Prudden’s office, "1 his, nothing “harcow Was added to the gover nment? s case, Frrthe more. . Poe er idenee received’ pursuant to this letter Was ex- o unted from the suppression order by the. tr ial court, uetponae® did not object. Secondly, Pradden tends that the letter was deceptive since Le xow'y 2 Sorence to the Fr ansfer of the ease to Revenue Aget Sitanler wns Cale lated to Kaise no suspicion and spe- * mention that Special Agent Cohen of the bntelli-; chee Seva would -heticeforth be-in charge of the: gation was omitted. Lexew testified: that his rT niin ign of the Special Avent? ’s assignment to the eash was not niide heeause he was afraid pf the flow of in- 5 cmaition would be ent off. The only yossible harm in fis letter wonld. He that Prudden- wotld think threat the enfey auto the case of a different — Was of no sig- ‘This letter is a out at. note 3 supra. wT nis letter is drs gut at note 4 supra: —-A-41 —" ae ° - inficauce. Whatever momentary. noisapprehension in this direction thatayas left in Prudden’s mindNiy the letter should have be dispelled by the. ac tai appearance not only of Revenue Age ‘nt Stanley but also Special Agent, Coben. In place of One ucophyte, 1 wo - experienced: agents ap speared and persisted in an. éx- amination and audit for fifteen months. At any rate, this conte ntion falis far short of persuading us thet the otter was frandulent. — : Beta ; te : i - % ‘ : ; Fricudliness of the Agents. Pr udden argues that the aye of the investigation was coneealed be ‘eause of - friendliness and cordiality of the relationship he- - +ween himselt. and the agents. Most .of the evidence he cites as proof of deceit through cordiality is with re via'd to Lexow. Here again we are reminded that hene of the information gathered by Lexow: is subject te suppression. Even with regard to the more business- Jike attitudes adopted by Cohen and Stanle¥, we per- ceive no possible subterfuge. We can see no sie sea why. ‘civil ser vants should be required. i in. their dat! dealings to assume anh uneivil character just on they are in a position to discover criminality on the part of a citizen. That would be a poor form of warning at best. If direct warnings are unnec¢ essary, then re- anuring circuitous warnings -hy the manner of: action . of the agents is irrational. Furthermore, the tone of every interpersonal relationship 1s subject to the cor-. “trol of alf the parties. Prudden’s own, conduct was a necessary ingredient of the amicaile elnsouaiy: of . which he now complains. It max well be that kindness | -oua taxpayer’s part could be calculated to dispel an agent ’s suspicions or to help to persuade him to see the results of dis investigation in. the most favorable light. By = we only mean to observe thi it “it takes two to tango.’ | Sas eee a Promises and Advice. Prudden further argues that promised advice from the agents, Another manifesta-- * ‘tion of their “dec ceptive” cordiality, was. fraudulent. ile first claims that Lexow said that he would advise bin «gn howto handle one feature of a particular stock sale involving a 52,800 dollar escrow account. Le ‘XOW pr NISC “d- PA Ade ‘oan answer when he knew all the “taets. But Lexow ‘le “ft the investig: ition without giving | Pe eee ndd@n any answer. So Lexow’s promise was nof de i , ceitful, Pridden also pressed Cohen anid Stanley for. ah Galena ae in regard to the same transaction hut admit~ hat he got na’ “recognizable answer.” The lone and — hort of this is that none of the agents ever gave hit inv edvice om the escrow. tr; ansaction. Tow eould this deceive hin? Prndde Dalso claims that the failive of ‘ the’: gents to adyise him that he shonld fle an amended | ' veturn in 1968 Wes misleading. He asked Cohen if he are . honld file an amended return and was told that the . ¢ ae agents would consider only his original return in ppe- 3 sparing their report. This is’ no more than a factual statement. It was not ‘showin'to be ¢ false or deceitfn], pn ’ Ft winulative Misreprese viations. The explication ot eek, : a: in: factual and eval segments can distort the | oral pieture of what really happened. Therefore, we : ave carefully veviewed the record as > whole but still annot find that Pridden sustained his hirden of prov- ‘ing fraud, decei: and trickery, Goodman v7 Nites States, 285 F Supp: 245 (C.D. Cal. 1968 ), whic h was re-- lied on hy the. District Court Js distingnishable, Most ” “notice ably, in that ease the taxpayer hitd only a gram. mar se hoo] education. and was affirmatively led to be- Heve that the inform: ition which he was giving the revenue agents was part of the investigation of ane other taxpaver, That is not near this edse on either eas Oe equnt, ? / ae 4 : : ‘ . e rhe ’ , ‘ ayy %% : od : © st ‘ ee a , ’ ” or “2 tats “ - i ‘ . . md ’ ; / - ee ‘ i. a y Vv . f a *, fy 3 ‘ ’ IN HE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No pelbelnisctncamias Pe od & ‘ er ober Term, 197¢ | (+ Joe H. Tox inviz, : ° . a : Petitioner ve Tae Uniti Sra . AMERICA } : Respondent CERTIFICS ATE OF SERVICE x I hereby seer rity that, in ot the Ri les ot this Court. on the 0 lat tember, 1970, three copies othe Petition faz aro Certiorari were mailed, air mail! postage prepaid. to the, Solicitor -Gerieral, United States Department ‘of Justice. Washington. D. POAR, 2g hres additional ai 4 Ses ta Mr. Johimie M. Walters: Assistant Attorney reYral. Tax Division, United States Department af PUSTICE, Washington. 1). ertify that ali Sarties reqhired 1. served >” —-~--- Sein P. o. eae 14s - Austin, Texas 78767 eee Coungel ‘Tor Petitioner Re Met | ee af Si Page ‘ AMUN. 2 Ra on og sans at era ey Pima 1 Jurisdiction... =.= 1. Teme ae ae eee eee ee 1 “Questions presented... yee op awa kaa knee & ie 2 Statute involved. __—- ee See Pete RA aaah or non ip Re 2 . Statement _.._... Pekar btw Ghin samme ont canes Ye 3 Pe eee te oe ee Naam ee 5 iinet 282 a eke ae wees See RC ee | ea fe || CITATIONS Cases: a ' Ayordhos ve L ‘nited States, 409 F. 2d $33, certiorari. 7 denied, 396 U.S./824....* CR as pie ag mm 3 5m ae , é Biggs v. United States, 246 F. 2d eset ss na acta ie S Seca v. North Carolina, ee): eh neat Cohen v. United States, 405 F. 2d 34, certiorari denied, 304 US. 944_...... ae Seo Ney eee eee 7 Feichtmeir v. L ited States, 389 F. od _ HeSee pyr ipre aes cae Sj Gouled vy. United States, 2! 0S 96... 822s mena 9 Grant ve € ‘nited States, 291 F.. 26: 227,:% vacated, 369 Mer a a oe oR eee aes Mle a ka Mahou 6 Hensley v. U Nasleil States, 406 F: 2d 481 Pols eae el gare 7 Judd vy. United States, 190 7 20Oe. ...03.. 2.52228. 8 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436__.-_. 2-2 --- 2, 6,7 Morgan v. United States, 377°F. 2d 507_----=--.----- : 6 Turner v. United States, 222 F. 2d 926, certiorari =. meee, aor ©) aed o.oo fetes as S United States v. Campione, 416 F. 2d 486, certiorari Wenn 6) I ee cece § United States v. Dechert, 413 F. 2d Hie. Joe, a Se United States v. Frank, 245 F. 2d 284, certiorari denied, MRE ANS co eee Vee El [ ‘hited States v. Gallagher. ( “ALT a 18, 000), decided | Da A a pe san titan 8 United States v. Haden, 397 F. 2d yt ee 6 im . Ww 1o0) PES eta : Cases—-Continued / . | | United States v. Jaskitwicz ANo. 18,387, C.A), — Page decided, September 28, 1970... +) 2. 7 United States v. Manetiso, 378 F. 2d- 612, certiorari i a I, Se a is So cee a ee oe United States v. Miriant, 422 F. 2d: 150, certiorari je" : nied, 399 U.S. 9105 _- ES RR ee 7 United States v. Neves, 269 F.OMpe. 196...-..2-5.02° - ©. United States v. Pate, 324 F: 2d 934____- Soph eb Sea - United States v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021, certiorari, Fe denied October 12, 1970, No. 453, this Term_____- 6, 8,9 United States v. Remolif, 227 F: Supp. 420-_-__------ , = @ United States v. Selafanr, 265 F. 2d° 408, certiorari de- a, DD Ge eo oan on eee cco Secuune 8,9 United States v. Tow nsend, (C.A. 7, No. 18, 159), decided July 9, 1970 pending on vstitlon for certi- Ve orari,-No. 708, Oct. 7, 1970_____- eee Sipe tein gens 8 United States v. White, 417 F. ad 89, certiorari dented, - Oe rs a a a rea oe cs cee ce ecco nae Man 6-7 Zacher v. United States, 297 F. 2d 219, certiorari denied, * OOOO OM. io 8 Statutes and regulations: 18 U.S.C. (Supp? V) ae ea eer eE Eee 2,5, 10 28 U.S.C.: oe . ae : a eae Spey ee apm a ey ae oe ee eases 10. Sec. 510. a ae as ee Nope nutes Se aa as ae atte ae 10 Pr er oe oe tcc tceceetaasccacdceeee™ ae j Mise ellaneous: Internal Revenue Service News. Release, November 26, 1968, 1968 CCH Fed. Tax Reporter, par. 6946, 1968 Prentice-Hall Fed. Taxes, par: 55, 576.__.---. - “J Je a a aa | i bo om fi Supremd Gout of the Bnited States Se mo TERM, 1970 . / N 0.. 672 JOE H. TONA att, PETITIONER -e4 ‘ vv. UFNTTED Graves OF AMERICA “ON PETITION FOR AW RIT OF CERTIOR: ARI TO THE UNITED STATES: COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 2 BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION . ? OPIN IONS BELOW The.opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. _A10-A14) reversi. ig the suppression order of the district court dis not vet reported. The opinion of the district court . ( Pet. Al- es is reported at 308 FY ie 97. J URISDICTION The ‘judeme nt of en: court of appeals Was entered July 13, 1970 (Pet. A9, A10) and a petition for re- hearing was denied August 13, 1970 (Pet. A15). The petition for a writ of PROCES Was filed) Septem- her 10, 1970. The’ jurisdiction of this’ Gaurt is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 12 254(1). 7 (1) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0339%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.