In United States v. Giresi, the defendant was charged with violating federal firearms laws by possessing two unregistered silencers without serial numbers; the charges stemmed from items seized during a search of his home authorized by a July 1978 warrant based on an affidavit from undercover agents investigating fencing, illegal gun dealing, and loansharking at a local bar. The court addressed the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, which argued that the affidavit lacked facts establishing probable cause to search his residence and that the warrant failed to describe the items sought with sufficient particularity. The court denied suppression, concluding that the affidavit, when read as a whole, provided probable cause through connections between the defendant, the bar's operators, and suspected criminal activity, including references to ammunition sales and stolen property observed at his home. It further held that the warrant's descriptions were adequately tied to the specified offenses, and any arguably overbroad categories did not require suppression because they could be severed without invalidating the remainder or expanding the search beyond lawful bounds.
The case involved defendant Robert Nilsen, who was charged with four counts of mailing obscene matter under 18 U.S.C. § 1461. He filed a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to seventeen search warrants, arguing that the supporting affidavits lacked probable cause due to stale information and uncorroborated hearsay, and that the warrants were unconstitutionally overbroad general warrants that failed to meet heightened Fourth Amendment standards applicable to materials arguably protected by the First Amendment. The court denied the motion after reviewing the affidavit of Postal Inspector Bruce Gentile, holding that the warrants were supported by probable cause because the information was sufficiently current and corroborated, the hearsay statements were reliable based on personal observation, and the warrants described the items to be seized with the requisite particularity. The decision focused on the warrant for the defendant's home as the key document but applied the same analysis to the series of warrants, which built upon each other by incorporating results from prior searches.
The case involved defendant George Weingartner, who was charged in a three-count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1) by receiving firearms shipped in interstate commerce while under a 1974 indictment for other federal offenses. Weingartner filed pre-trial motions seeking dismissal of the indictment, a Franks hearing on alleged falsehoods in a search warrant affidavit, suppression of seized evidence, and a bill of particulars regarding the government's handling of the prior indictment, which had been dismissed in 1979 due to unavailable witnesses. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding no constitutional violation or prosecutorial misconduct in the grand jury process, and ruled that a Franks hearing was unnecessary because uncontested portions of the affidavit independently established probable cause for the searches. It also denied the requested bill of particulars for information already available in public court records.
This case involves a dispute between Banco di Roma, the issuing bank, and Fidelity Union Trust Co., the advising bank, over Fidelity's payment under an irrevocable letter of credit for the sale of two tractors. Banco di Roma sought to recover the payment amount after the buyer rejected documents showing a destination of 'Beirut' rather than the required 'Beirut Free Zone In Transit Kuwait,' claiming the payment violated the credit terms governed by the UCP and New Jersey UCC. The court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. It found the credit instructions unambiguous and centered the analysis on whether the documents strictly complied, but concluded a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding avoidable damages and mitigation efforts after the documents were rejected.
The case concerned a challenge by applicants to the Jersey City Fire Department against the city's requirement of psychological testing as a condition of employment, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as an alleged violation of constitutional rights including privacy and freedom of belief. The court upheld the testing program as constitutional after a full trial reviewing extensive evidence on its validity and administration. It reasoned that firefighting is an unusually demanding and critical public safety role where psychological fitness is essential, that the tests were reasonably tailored and not arbitrary, and that any intrusion on protected interests was justified without infringing absolute freedoms. The decision distinguished the program from less credible or more invasive testing struck down in other contexts, such as school programs targeting minors.
This admiralty case concerns a shipment of 466 cartons of tape recording decks from Japan to New Jersey that was misdelivered to an unknown party, resulting in the loss of 432 cartons, and which party should bear that loss. Plaintiff consignee Morse sued the carrier Ta Cheng, which in turn brought claims against the terminal operator Maher and others, while the customs broker Byrnes and designated truckmen Interport and Ultimate also filed motions. The court denied most motions for summary judgment, leaving all parties except the truckmen in the case, and granted Interport and Ultimate's motion as one to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The reasoning focused on the duties of bailees and carriers regarding proper delivery orders and release of cargo, noting that liability can attach even without negligence under certain precedents, while procedural and factual disputes precluded summary resolution for most defendants.