Amos v. United States, No. 114
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | CLARKE |
| Citation | 255 U.S. 313,65 L.Ed. 654,41 S.Ct. 266 |
| Docket Number | No. 114 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1921 |
| Parties | AMOS v. UNITED STATES |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Page 314
Messrs. H. H. Obear and Charles A. Douglas, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General and Mr. W. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiff in error, whom we shall designate defendant as he was in the court below, was tried on an indictment containing six counts. He was found not guilty on the first four counts, but guilty on the fifth, which charged him with having removed whisky on which the revenue tax had not been paid to a place other than a government warehouse, and also on the sixth, which charged him with having sold whisky on which the tax required by law had not been paid.
After the jury was sworn, but before any evidence was offered, the defendant presented to the court a petition, duly sworn to by him, praying that there be returned to him described private property of his which it was averred the District Attorney intended to use in evidence at the trial and which had been seized by P. J. Coleman and C. A. Rector, officers of the government, in a search of defendant's house and store 'within his curtilage,' made unlawfully and without warrant of any kind, in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Upon reading of this petition and hearing of the application
Page 315
it was denied, and exception being noted, the trial proceeded.
Coleman and Rector were called as witnesses by the government and testified: That as deputy collectors of internal revenue, they went to defendant's home, and, not finding him there, but finding a woman who said she was his wife, told her that they were revenue officers and had come to search the premises 'for violations of the revenue law'; that thereupon the woman opened the store and the witnesses entered, and in a barrel of peas found a bottle containing not quite a half pint of illicitly distilled whisky, which they called 'blockade whisky'; and that they then went into the home of defendant, and on searching found two bottles under the quilt on the bed, one of which contained a full quart and the other a little over a quart of illicitly distilled whisky. The government introduced in evidence a pint bottle containing whisky, which the witness Coleman stated 'was not one of the bottles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Valenzuela, No. CR–15–0222–PR.
...549 n. 13, 88 S.Ct. 1788 (citing Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) ; Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 317, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1921) ). It reasoned that “[w]hen a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant......
-
State v. Billups, 32715
...State, 128 Miss. 211, 90 So. 848; Boyds v. U.S. 29 L.Ed. 746; Weeks v. U.S. 58 L.Ed. 652; Silverthorn v. U.S. 64 L.Ed. 319; Amos v. U.S. 65 L.Ed. 654; Falkner v. State, 134 Miss. 253, 98 So. 691. The rule is well settled that constitutional provisions designed for the protection of persons ......
-
Orick v. State, 24841
...L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177; Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647; and Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654. We quoted from these cases, and held that, while the holding of the United States supreme court construing the ......
-
Loeb v. State, 23468
...in the conclusion of his opinion, after citing Gouled v. The United States, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, and Amos. v. U. S. [133 Miss. 888] 255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654: "There is ample authority holding that the court will not stop to inquire into whether the evidence offered wa......
-
State v. Valenzuela, No. CR–15–0222–PR.
...549 n. 13, 88 S.Ct. 1788 (citing Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) ; Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 317, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1921) ). It reasoned that “[w]hen a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant......
-
State v. Billups, 32715
...State, 128 Miss. 211, 90 So. 848; Boyds v. U.S. 29 L.Ed. 746; Weeks v. U.S. 58 L.Ed. 652; Silverthorn v. U.S. 64 L.Ed. 319; Amos v. U.S. 65 L.Ed. 654; Falkner v. State, 134 Miss. 253, 98 So. 691. The rule is well settled that constitutional provisions designed for the protection of persons ......
-
Orick v. State, 24841
...L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177; Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647; and Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654. We quoted from these cases, and held that, while the holding of the United States supreme court construing the ......
-
Loeb v. State, 23468
...in the conclusion of his opinion, after citing Gouled v. The United States, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, and Amos. v. U. S. [133 Miss. 888] 255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654: "There is ample authority holding that the court will not stop to inquire into whether the evidence offered wa......