Hagen v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4351.,4351. |
| Citation | 4 F.2d 801 |
| Parties | HAGEN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Carkeek, McDonald, Harris & Coryell, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff in error.
Thos. P. Revelle, U. S. Atty., and C. T. McKinney, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
Hagen, Pielow, Givens, and Brown were jointly indicted and tried for conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.). Brown was acquitted; Hagen and the others were convicted. Hagen brought writ of error.
Upon the trial a prohibition agent testified that he with other agents went to the dwelling house at 122 Broadway, Seattle, and there served the search warrant upon defendant Hagen, who was in the house, and that upon a search of the house for liquor he found beer and gin in Pielow's room. Counsel for defendants objected to any testimony of the discovery of liquor or any other article, on the ground that the search warrant was wholly void and that the seizure was illegal. The objection was overruled and exception was noted. Witness testified that Brown said the place was his; that Hagen said he did not live there, which statement was true so far as witness knew. Witness also testified that he seized a book and papers and cards, all of which were identified as taken from the person of Hagen. These papers and memoranda so seized upon the person of Hagen were admitted in evidence against Hagen and the other defendants. The papers contained various written abbreviations which a witness for the government testified were commonly used to describe certain kinds of intoxicating liquor. The memoranda were very material as tending to implicate Hagen in the conspiracy charged. The question we shall decide is whether the warrant and search were valid.
In the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued O'Hara set forth that he was a federal prohibition agent; that one "Ed Hagen and employees on the 20th of February, 1923, and thereafter was, has been and is possessing and selling intoxicating liquor, all for beverage purposes on the premises used, operated, and occupied in connection therewith, * * * all of said premises being occupied or under the control of Ed Hagen and employees, in violation of the statute," etc. Wherefore affiant asked that a search warrant issue "authorizing a search of the persons of said Ed Hagen and employees and the premises above described and seizure of any and all of the above described property and intoxicating liquor and means of committing the crime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Maude
...in the search warrant. E. g., United States v. Kirschenblatt, 16 F.2d 202, 203-204, 51 A.L.R. 416 (2d Cir. 1926); Hagen v. United States, 4 F.2d 801, 802 (9th Cir. 1925); United States v. Friedberg, 233 F. 313, 315-318 (E.D.Pa.1916). Other decisions, predating Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294......
-
State v. Naething
...v. Kaplan, 286 F. 964; Hannan v. State, 233 P. 401; United States v. Deloic, 2 F.2d 377; Lochlane v. United States, 2 F.2d 427; Hagen v. United States, 4 F.2d 801; Giles United States, 284 F. 214; United States v. Donnelly, 288 F. 982; Central Consumer's Co. v. James, 278 F. 252. (2) The co......
-
United States v. Ramirez
...States, 1933, 290 U.S. 41, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159; In re No. 32 East Sixty-Seventh Street, 2 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 153; Hagen v. United States, 9 Cir., 1925, 4 F.2d 801; cf. Byars v. United States, 1927, 273 U.S. 28, 29, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520. Cases involving the validity of arrest wa......