Farris v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 5276.,5276. |
| Citation | 24 F.2d 639 |
| Parties | FARRIS et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Solon B. Clark and Chase A. Clark, both of Mackay, Idaho, for plaintiffs in error.
H. E. Ray, U. S. Atty., and Sam S. Griffin and William H. Langroise, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Boise, Idaho.
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of conviction under counts 1, 3, and 4 of an information charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, the unlawful possession of property designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
In support of the first count the government offered testimony tending to prove that two prohibition agents and the sheriff of the county visited the dwelling house of the plaintiffs in error on the early morning of December 28, 1925. As the officers approached the dwelling, they observed Amos Farris, one of the plaintiffs in error, standing in the doorway in his nightwear. Farris watched the officers approaching for a time, and then closed the door quickly and ran back into the house, and out onto a porch at the rear. He there grabbed something quickly and started back through the house, and the officers heard a breaking on the inside. The officers then entered the house, some of them, at least, without permission or invitation, and one of them informed Farris that he was a federal agent and that they came there to look over or search the house. To this Farris replied: — or words to that effect. Nothing further was in fact found, unless it be said that the officers later discovered that a broken jug, already found in the house, had contained moonshine whisky.
In support of the third and fourth counts the government offered testimony tending to prove that the plaintiffs in error operated a still on what is known as the Hill ranch, some 20-odd miles from the dwelling referred to in the foregoing testimony. That they so maintained the still and manufactured intoxicating liquor there was testified to by Hill, the owner of the ranch, and by his minor son. There was no testimony to the contrary, nor is it claimed that any error was committed at the trial, in so far as the third and fourth counts are concerned. It is earnestly insisted, however, that the testimony offered in support of the first count was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, and that the improper admission of this testimony vitiated the entire trial. That the officers were trespassers in the first instance does not admit of question, and we are far from convinced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Page
...of consent than here, we have held against a finding of consent. (Herter v. United States, 1928, 9 Cir., 27 F.2d 521; Farris v. United States, 1928, 9 Cir., 24 F.2d 639). Other courts have also done so. (Ray v. United States, 5 Cir., 1936, 84 F.2d 654; Cofer v. United States, 5 Cir., 1930, ......
-
Smith v. United States
...other grounds, 344 U.S. 414, 73 S.Ct. 369, 97 L.Ed. 447 (1953); Samuel v. United States, 169 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1948); Farris v. United States, 24 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1928).2Hirabayashi is not to the contrary since there was no claim in that case that error on either count prejudiced the Thu......
-
People v. Michael
...without the permission or knowledge of the occupants (see Dukes v. United States, 4 Cir., 275 F. 142, 144-145; Farris v. United States, 9 Cir., 24 F.2d 639, 639-640), or demanded the right to search without a warrant. (See, Amos v. United States, supra, 255 U.S. 313, 317, 41 S.Ct. 266; Unit......
-
Com. v. Burgos
...that a suspect would assert opposition to a search which appeared inevitable. Bumper v. North Carolina, supra. Farris v. United States, 24 F.2d 639 (9 Cir. 1928); Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1920); Lee v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 97, 232 F.2d 354 (......