Jenkins v. United States, 3406.
| Citation | 161 F.2d 99 |
| Decision Date | 03 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 3406.,3406. |
| Parties | JENKINS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
C. Arthur Anderson, of St. Louis, Mo., and Chas. W. Moss, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellant.
Robert E. Shelton, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl., for the United States.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jenkins and one Lane were charged, by an information containing two counts, with violations of 27 U.S.C.A. § 223. The first count charged that Jenkins and Lane transported intoxicating liquor into Oklahoma, a state in which all sales of intoxicating liquor containing more than four per centum of alcohol by volume are prohibited. The second count charged that they assisted in the transportation of intoxicating liquor into Oklahoma. Lane was convicted on the first count and Jenkins on the second count.
At the trial, evidence of a large quantity of whiskey and other intoxicating liquor being transported by an International trailer truck within Oklahoma, obtained through the search of the truck made without a search warrant, was introduced in evidence. A motion to suppress the evidence thus obtained was denied by the trial court.
The evidence introduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress established these facts: On March 27, 1945, two investigators for the Alcohol Tax Unit pointed Jenkins out to one Mogridge, another investigator for the Alcohol Tax Unit, and told the latter that Jenkins was engaged in transporting whiskey into Oklahoma in a large truck equipped with a cattle rack. On December 10, 1945, Mogridge received information from Hoyt Shelby, the Indian Agent at Anadarko, Oklahoma, that a big truck was transporting intoxicating liquor into Oklahoma. On December 15, 1945, Mogridge received a telephone call from an anonymous person who stated: * * *" On December 19, 1945, Mogridge received a second call from an anonymous person who stated: It was not unusual for one Oklahoma liquor dealer to give information respecting importations by other liquor dealers to investigators for the Alcohol Tax Unit. On December 21, 1945, Mogridge, Dale, and Pauly, the latter two also being investigators for the Alcohol Tax Unit, saw the truck at Anadarko, Oklahoma. It was parked at the premises of Frank Newell, a known illicit liquor dealer at Anadarko. Newell boarded the truck. The truck then proceeded on, and the investigators followed it for about 30 miles to Binger. At Binger, the truck parked in a driveway in front of the home of one John Tierney, another known illicit liquor dealer. Tierney came out of his house. The investigators parked their car behind the truck, approached the truck and identified themselves. Pauly took a position beside Lane and Newell, who were by the hood of the truck. Jenkins was in the driver's seat. Newell said, "You fellows got here at a funny time." In response to inquiries by Mogridge, Jenkins gave Lane's name, and Jenkins and Lane stated that they resided at Joplin and Springfield, Missouri, respectively. Mogridge then told Jenkins to get out of the truck, searched him for weapons, and Mogridge and Jenkins walked to the back of the truck. Jenkins said, Mogridge replied in the negative and asked Jenkins how much whiskey was in the truck. Jenkins replied, "I think there is about 330 cases." After a short conversation, Mogridge placed Jenkins under arrest, searched him, and seized an invoice for 334 cases of taxpaid liquor. Mogridge then arrested and searched Lane. Jenkins drove the truck to Oklahoma City. The investigators there broke the lock and seized 334 cases of whiskey and other intoxicating liquor.
The truck was a 1940 International and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Derrico
...399 (2d Cir. 1970), the United States Court of Appeals quoted with approval (p. 401) the following language from Jenkins v. United States, 161 F.2d 99, 101 (10th Cir. 1947): "To constitute an arrest, there must be an actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person, performed with ......
-
United States v. Margeson
...Brinegar v. United States, 165 F.2d 512 (10th Cir. 1947), aff'd 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949); Jenkins v. United States, 161 F.2d 99 (10th Cir. 1947); Cf. Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 ......
-
State v. Henderson, 13264
...to effect an arrest and so understood by the person detained.' " United States v. Grandi, supra, at 401, quoting Jenkins v. United States, 161 F.2d 99, 101 (10th Cir.1947). The state presented compelling evidence during the trial from which the jury reasonably could have concluded that the ......
-
People v. Estrialgo
...court below (116 F.2d 512, 516, 517) drew this same distinction citing Poulas v. United States, 9 Cir., 95 F.2d 412; and Jenkins v. United States, 10 Cir., 161 F.2d 99. See also Feguer v. United States, 8 Cir., 302 F.2d 214, 245; Busby v. United States, 9 Cir., 296 F.2d 328; Weathersbee v. ......