Gatterdam v. United States
| Citation | 5 F.2d 673 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4247-4249.,4247-4249. |
| Parties | GATTERDAM et al. v. UNITED STATES. GATTERDAM v. SAME. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Rowan Hardin, of Louisville, Ky., for plaintiffs in error.
W. S. Ball, U. S. Atty., of Louisville, Ky. (Claude Hudgins and Lilburn Phelps, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON, MACK, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.
In 4248, the writ of error covered convictions upon two indictments. At the last session we sustained the conviction upon indictment No. 1138, retaining for further consideration the conviction under indictment No. 1137. This conviction and Nos. 4247 and 4249 can now be disposed of together.
While the sentences of imprisonment on the four convictions were concurrent, and while the fine imposed in each of the four cases was the same in amount, we interpret the records as meaning that the fines were intended to be separate and distinct, and to require payment of the total sum. The three remaining convictions, therefore, cannot be treated as involving no results not disposed of by the former affirmance.
In all three cases it is urged that, in so far as the Volstead Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.), prohibits possession, it goes beyond the Eighteenth Amendment and is unconstitutional. This contention is overruled on authority of Everard v. Day, 265 U. S. 545, 44 S. Ct. 628, 68 L. Ed. 1174. In all three cases it is also urged that the indictment was not sufficient to support a conviction for a third offense. This contention is overruled, upon authority of our opinion in Dolan v. U. S., 4 F.(2d) 251, filed March 2, 16, 1925.
In 4247 and 4248, it is claimed that the existing general arrangement in Louisville between prohibition agents and the police made the latter the agents of the former, and so far charged the federal government with the responsibility for the acts of the police that a search and seizure by the latter would be considered in a federal court as if made by the former. The proofs do not show any general arrangement between federal and city officers sufficient to support the argument. They show only that the instructions and practice of the police officers were that, when by their raids and searches they found what they considered rather serious infractions of the federal law, they should take those cases to the federal courts for prosecution, and that accordingly they took up each such case by consultation with the district attorney, and a federal warrant was issued or not as the district attorney advised. The record fails to show any responsibility on the part of the federal authorities for what the police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Douglas
...Kershner v. Boles, 212 F.Supp. 9, 10 (ND WVa 1963); United States v. Haas, 106 F.Supp. 295, 296 (WD Pa 1953); Gatterdam v. United States, 5 F.2d 673, 674 (6th Cir. 1925); Thurman v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 177, 180 (1970); State v. Hamilton, 264 N.C. 277, 141 S.E.2d 506, 512 (1965);......
-
United States v. Page
...763; United States v. Sclafani, 2 Cir., 1959, 265 F. 2d 408; Anderson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 255 F.2d 96; Gatterdam v. United States, 6 Cir., 1925, 5 F.2d 673; Windsor v. United States, 6 Cir., 1923, 286 F. 51; Schutte v. United States, 6 Cir., 1927, 21 F.2d 830; Kovach v. United S......
-
U.S. v. Lace
...Robbins v. MacKenzie, 364 F.2d 45, 50 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 215, 17 L.Ed.2d 140 (1966); Gatterdam v. United States, 5 F.2d 673, 674 (6th Cir. 1925). 5 We agree with Judge Newman's comments urging caution in accepting guilty pleas that are subject to the number and......
-
Robbins v. MacKenzie, 6688.
...that events had caught up with him, and that if he refused entry he would merely be postponing the inevitable. Cf. Gatterdam v. United States, 6 Cir., 1925, 5 F.2d 673, 674 ("You might as well consent, because, if you do not, we will go and get a search warrant," held not coercion.) Bowing ......