Hester v. United States, 243
| Citation | 44 S.Ct. 445,68 L.Ed. 898,265 U.S. 57 |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 243,243 |
| Parties | HESTER v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Richard A. Ford, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., and Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
The plaintiff in error, Hester, was convicted of concealing distilled spirits, etc., under Rev. St. § 3296 (Comp. St. § 6038). The case is brought here directly from the District Court on the single ground that by refusing to exclude the testimony of two witnesses and to direct a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff in error, the Court violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
The witnesses whose testimony is objected to were revenue officers. In consequence of information they went toward the house of Hester's father, where the plaintiff in error lived, and as they approached saw one Henderson drive near to the house. They concealed themselves from fifty to one hundred yards away and saw Hester come out and hand Henderson a quart bottle. An alarm was given. Hester went to a car standing near, took a gallon jug from it and he and Henderson ran. One of the officers pursued, and fired a pistol. Hester dropped his jug, which broke but kept about a quart of its contents. Henderson threw away his bottle also. The jug and bottle both contained what the officers, being experts, recognized as moonshine whisky, that is, whisky illicitly distilled; said to be easily recognizable. The other officer entered the house, but being told there was no whisky there left it, but found outside a jar that had been thrown out and broken and that also contained whisky. While the officers were there other cars stopped at the house but were spoken to by Hester's father and drove off. The officers had no warrant for search or arrest, and it is contended that this made their evidence inadmissible, it being assumed, on the strength of the pursuing officer's saying that he supposed they were on Hester's land, that such was the fact. It is obvious that even if there had been a trespass, the above testimony was not obtained by an illegal search or seizure. The defendant's own acts, and those of his associates, disclosed the jug, the jar and the bottle—and there was no seizure in the sense of the law when the officers examined the contents of each after it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobb v. Wyrick
...1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, 743 (1963); United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202 (1927); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924). An excellent analysis of the long-standing "plain view" doctrine is set forth in the landmark United States Supr......
-
People v. Maltz
...v. Willard, 238 Cal.App.2d 292, 298--307, 47 Cal.Rptr. 734.) Based upon the 'open fields' doctrine of Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 58--59, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898, 899--900, a number of cases indicated that the open areas surrounding a private residence and, indeed, some outbuil......
-
Sterling, Application of
...the courts have shown considerable liberality in validating police access to observation and listening posts. (Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (trespass on land); People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 775, 290 P.2d 855 (looking through window); People v. Foster, 199 C......
-
People v. Sirhan
...1623, 1634, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202 (1927); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924).' (Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 993, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067.) Even if an officer may have ......
-
Misdemeanor defense
...curtilage. The Fourth Amendment bar against unreasonable searches and seizures does not extend to open fields. [ Hester v. United States , 265 U.S. 57 (1924).] Nonetheless, open fields are afforded Fourth Amendment protection if the owner has taken steps to protect the privacy of the owner’......
-
STINGRAY STUNG? ANALYZING CELLPHONES AS EFFECTS PROVIDES FOURTH AMENDMENT TREATMENT.
...States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012). (143.) United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 705-06 (1983). (144.) H est er v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 (1924); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 176 (145.) Brady, supra note 137, at 960 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Oliver......
-
U.s. Supreme Court Criminal Decisions: 1973-1974 Term
...not constitute an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In reaffirming their holding in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), that the Fourth Amendment does not protect sights seen in "the open fields," the Court stated that any invasion of privacy in such c......
-
The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away: the century of Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" doctrine.
...would rule in 1924 that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to searches or seizures conducted in an open field. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (151) See, e.g., United States v. Fenton, 268 F. 221, 222-23 (D. Mont. 1920) (ruling that the United States was "vested with the right of prope......