Green v. United States
| Decision Date | 29 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | 5997. |
| Citation | 289 F. 236 |
| Parties | GREEN et al. v. UNITED STATES. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
George A. Neal and Julius C. Shapiro, both of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs in error.
Samuel M. Carmean, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo. (Charles C Madison, U.S. Atty., of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.
Before LEWIS, Circuit Judge, and POLLOCK and SYMES, District Judges.
The defendants, plaintiffs in error here, Isadore Green and Benjamin Lichtor, were convicted on the second count of an indictment charging them with being dealers in and having in their possession on January 18, 1921, unlawfully, a quantity of morphine and cocaine without having registered as dealers and paying the special tax as required by what is known as the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (Comp. St. Secs. 6287g-6287q). The defendants on this appeal have raised two points: First that they were illegally arrested and their personal belongings searched without the authority of a wrongfully used as evidence against them; secondly, that the court erred in admitting evidence of an offer of money made by defendants to the officers at the time of their arrest to secure their release.
The evidence discloses that for over a month prior to the arrest of the defendants they had been under surveillance by the narcotic agents, who had information that they had brought narcotics into Kansas City. The officers were also watching a certain drug store that was notorious as a rendezvous for drug peddlers, and during the time mentioned the defendant Lichtor was seen to drive up there in his car and engage in conversation with the proprietor, then under indictment for dealing in narcotics. Their investigation further disclosed that the car the defendant Lichtor was using was licensed in the name of the defendant Green. There is evidence that on the day of the arrest the two defendants drove up to the drug store, and one of them went in. Later they were observed at a barber shop run by Green, where Lichtor spent part of his time. From there they proceeded in the car licensed in the name of Green, and drove to the drug store. Green alighted carrying a grip, followed by Lichtor. At this point the officers stepped up, disclosed their identity, and placed them under arrest, and, putting them back in the car, started with them for the police station. Immediately the defendants began to talk about 'fixing the matter up,' etc., so as not to be taken to jail, and exhibited and offered $250 to the officers, stating there would be more coming, if necessary. At the same time the officers inquired what was in the bag that was in possession of the defendants in the car and they Replied, 'nothing.' The officers requested them to open it. They complied, and a quantity of morphine and cocaine was found therein, which was afterwards used as evidence at the trial.
Taking up the first point, and bearing in mind the language of the Supreme Court in several late cases enjoining a broad construction of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, to the end that the immunities of the citizen therein specified shall not be weakened: It is settled that this amendment contains no prohibition against arrest, search, or seizure without a warrant, but only denounces unreasonable searches and seizures. The decisions of the federal courts, and many states, including Missouri, recognize the right of a constable or peace officer to arrest a criminal caught in the act of committing a crime without a warrant, and, further, to search him, and take and use as evidence against him any implements or evidence of the crime found in his possession. It has further been held that it is not an unreasonable search for an officer, charged with the enforcement of the law, to arrest on the public highway a person who, as in the case at bar, previous information gives him reasonable grounds to believe has committed and is committing a felony. Such was the common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and the Fourth Amendment made no change therein.
Blackstone in his Commentaries (book 4, p. 292), states the common-law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. State
... ... opinion of Mr. Justice BRADLEY, speaking for the court in ... Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746, 6 ... S.Ct. 524. As was there shown, it took its origin in ... Blackstone in this ... Commentaries, Book 4, p. 292, states the common-law doctrine ... Green v. U. S. (1923), 289 F. 238; Ledwith v ... Catchpole, Cald. Cas. at 295; Lawrence v ... ...
-
Davis v. United States
...6 Cir., 259 F. 94; Donegan v. United States, 2 Cir., 287 F. 641; Winkler v. United States, 9 Cir., 297 F. 202. 6 E.g., Green v. United States, 8 Cir., 289 F. 236, 238; Browne v. United States, 6 Cir., 290 F. 870, 875; Garske v. United States, 8 Cir., 1 F.2d 620; Kwong How v. United States, ......
-
Cent. Specialties, Inc. v. Large
...law that a county engineer is a peace officer, a constable, or someone "charged with the enforcement of the law", Green v. United States , 289 F. 236, 238 (8th Cir. 1923),5 so as to have authority to make arrests or seizures of persons on public highways. In Allen , the court noted that Wes......
-
Peru v. United States
...for him to have and which may be used to prove the offense may be seized and held as evidence in the prosecution." Green et al. v. United States (C. C. A.) 289 F. 236; Welsh v. United States (C. C. A.) 267 F. 819; Donegan v. United States (C. C. A.) 287 F. 641; Elrod v. Moss et al. (C. C. A......
-
The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away: the century of Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" doctrine.
...States v. Snyder, 278 F. 650, 658 (N.D.W.Va. 1922); Lambert v. United States, 282 F. 413, 416-17 (9th Cir. 1922); Green v. United States, 289 F. 236, 238 (8th Cir. (153) 267 U.S. 132, 156-59 (1925). (154) Id. at 156-58. (155) Id. at 149, 159. (156) Id. at 162. This definition of probable ca......