Louis Brandeis

“ But a motion for the return of property, although connected with a motion to quash a search warrant, may, if made in the same court in which a criminal proceeding is pending, be so closely associated with the criminal proceeding as to be deemed a part of it. Thus, where the motion to quash the search warrant and for return of the property is made by a party to the cause is filed in the cause and seeks suppression of the evidence at the trial, it is apparent that the motion to quash the search warrant is an incident merely; that the real purpose of the application is to suppress evidence ”

“ The orders made upon such applications, so far as they affect the rights only of parties to the litigation, are interlocutory. Compare Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.C.t. 356, 50 L. Ed. 686. It is only when disobedience happens to result in an order punishing criminally for contempt, that a party may have review by appellate proceedings before entry of the final judgment in the cause. Union Tool Co. ”

“ United States, 16 F. (2d) 345, 57 App. D. C. 5. See Mellet & Nichter Brewing Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 296 F. 765, 770.↑ See Gallagher v. United States (C. C. A.) 6 F. (2d) 758; United States v. ”