Dumbra v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 546,546 |
| Citation | 268 U.S. 435,69 L.Ed. 1032,45 S.Ct. 546 |
| Parties | DUMBRA et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles Marvin, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Mahlon D. Kiefer, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
This case comes to this court on writ of error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, for the review of an order of the District Judge denying a motion to quash a search warrant which had been granted by him authorizing the search of a grocery store at 514 East Sixteenth street and the adjoining premises number 512 East Sixteenth street, New York City, at which last-mentional place plaintiffs in error maintained a winery under permit from the government. The warrant directed the seizure of any intoxicating liquor possessed in violation of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138 1/4 et seq.). Execution of the warrant resulted in the seizure of 74 bottles of wine from the grocery store at No. 514 and 50 barrels of wine from the winery on the premises No. 512.
The motion was made to quash the search warrant so far as it affected the premises 512 East Sixteenth street and for the return of the fifty barrels of wine seized on the premises. The sole grounds of the motion, which are the principal assignments of error here, were that the search warrant was issued without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and that the officer serving the warrant had no authority to receive and execute it.
The warrant was executed by a prohibition agent who was an agent and employee of the United States. He was regularly appointed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; the appointment was approved by the Secretary of the Treasury and he was charged with enforcing the National Prohibition Act ).
The question as to the authority of a prohibition agent to receive and execute a search warrant is disposed of by the decision of this court delivered April 13, 1925, in case No. 636, Steele v. United States, 267 U. S. 505, 45 S. Ct. 417, 69 L. Ed. 761. In that case it was held that prohibition agents or employees of the United States have the power and authority to serve a search warrant under the provisions of the Espionage Act and the National Prohibition Act. Following that decision, we hold that the warrant here was served by an authorized officer and that no right of plaintiff in error was infringed by reason of the method of service of the warrant.
The other stated ground of the plaintiff's appeal confines us narrowly to a consideration of the question whether the affidavit on which the search warrant was issued afforded sufficient ground for the issue of the warrant under the laws and Constitution of the United States. We are not concerned with the question whether on trial had, the government may or may not succeed on its libel filed for the condemnation and forfeiture of the seized wines. The proceedings had and now under review do not go to the merits, but only to the sufficiency of the affidavit, on which the search warrant was issued, to set the machinery of the law in motion by way of the summary process of search and seizure.
Although the affidavit on which the warrant was granted does not disclose the fact, the plaintiffs in error, at all times material to the issues, were the holders of a permit of the Treasury Department issued pursuant to section 3 of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 308 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138 1/2aa]) authorizing them to manufacture and sell wines upon the searched premises for nonbeverage purposes. By the terms of the permit they were permitted to have on hand on the premises not more than 100,000 gallons of wine. They were required to give bond, pursuant to Treasury Regulations, in the sum of $50,000. Their premises were subject to inspection of internal revenue officers during business hours. In view of these provisions of the permit and of the provisions of section 9 of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 311 [section 10138 1/2dd]) authorizing revocation of the permit in the case of its violation and for its temporary suspension pending proceedings for its revocation, the resort to the summary procedure of search and seizure, without disclosing, in the affidavit submitted to the judge issuing the warrant, that a permit had been granted was, to say the least, disingenuous, and would seem to have been a harsh and unnecessary exercise of governmental power by the officials concerned.
But the permit issued did not authorize the possession of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes by plaintiffs, and it could afford no protection to one who possessed such liquors with intent to use them in violation of the National Prohibition Act. Reid v. United States (C. C. A.) 276 F. 253. If possessed with such intent, they were subject to search and seizure under section 25 of the act (41 Stat. 315 [section 10138 1/2m]), and if probable cause were shown, a warrant authorizing such search and seizure might be duly and lawfully issued. Under such circumstances search and seizure are not unauthorized or unconstitutional.
Section 25 of the National Prohibition Act, so far as pertinent to the present inquiry, reads as follows:
Title 11 of the Public Law approved June 15, 1917, known as the 'Espionage Act,' referred to in section 25 of National...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Theodor v. Superior Court, Orange County
...the belief that the law was being violated on the premises to be searched * * *.' [Emphasis added.] (Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 441, 45 S.Ct. 546, 549, 69 L.Ed. 1032, 1036; see also McCray v. Illinois, supra, 386 U.S. 300, 307, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62; People v. Bak, supra,......
-
Theodor v. Superior Court
...supra; Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637) are reasonable. (Dumbra v. United States, supra, 268 U.S. 435, 441, 45 S.Ct. 546, 69 L.Ed. 1032.) However, if a magistrate is presented with false or inaccurate information in an application for a warrant, t......
-
United States ex rel. Petillo v. State of NJ
...the offense charged has been or is being committed. If so probable cause exists for issuance of a warrant. Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 45 S.Ct. 546, 69 L.Ed. 1032 (1925). If upon execution of the warrant, evidence of the crime described in the affidavit is seized, it cannot be ga......
-
Terry v. State of Ohio
...210 (1948); Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 700—701, 51 S.Ct. 240, 242, 75 L.Ed. 629 (1931); Dunbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 441, 45 S.Ct. 546, 549, 69 L.Ed. 1032 (1925); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 159—162, 45 S.Ct. 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); Stacey v. Emery, 9......
-
Probable Cause in Child Pornography Cases: Does It Mean the Same Thing?
...only unreasonable searches and seizures. Id. at 147. 44 Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003). 45 Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 441 (1925) (quoting Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1891)). 46 11 U.S. 339, 348 (1813), quoted in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 ......
-
Messerschmidt v. Millender
...and practice (7th ed.). Belmont,CA: Thomson Learning, Inc.Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959).Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925).Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004).Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).Johnson v. United States,......
-
Why the plain view doctrine should not apply to digital evidence.
...of warrants. E.g., FED. R. CRIM. P. 41 (providing for general procedural requirements for federal warrants). (20) Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 441 (21) See United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 1997). (22) For a more expansive discussion of probable cause, see 1 EDWAR......