Hall v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 6020.,6020. |
| Citation | 41 F.2d 54 |
| Parties | HALL v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John L. Sullivan, of Phœnix, Ariz., for appellant.
John C. Gung'l, U. S. Atty., and B. G. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Tucson, Ariz.
Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and WILBUR, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction under three counts of an information charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, the unlawful possession of property designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and the maintenance of a common nuisance. The first and second assignments of errors are based on rulings excluding testimony offered by the appellant and refusing to suppress evidence seized by state officers under a state search warrant. These two assignments will be considered together. The material facts are as follows. The sheriff of Yavapai county, Ariz., obtained a search warrant from one of the state courts, authorizing the search of certain premises occupied by the appellant. The affidavit for the search warrant was on information and belief, and was clearly insufficient under the federal statutes. Byars v. United States, 273 U. S. 28, 47 S. Ct. 248, 71 L. Ed. 520; Veeder v. United States (C. C. A.) 252 F. 414; United States v. Borkowski (D. C.) 268 F. 408; Giles v. United States (C. C. A.) 284 F. 208; Siden v. United States (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 241; Proulx v. United States (C. C. A.) 32 F.(2d) 760. We do not understand that the government makes any serious claim to the contrary. Under the search warrant, the sheriff and his deputies made a search of the premises therein described and found a large assortment of intoxicating liquor and property designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. When the search was completed and before the seized property was removed from the premises, the sheriff called up the local prohibition agents by telephone, with a view of turning the property over to them, and this was done on the following morning. The sheriff, as a witness for the government, was interrogated concerning telephone communications, or other arrangements, with prohibition agents, or other federal officers, relating to the search and seizure, but the testimony was limited by the court to conversations had or arrangements made at, or prior to, the time of the search. The appellant then asked the witness the following question: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Hood
...1159; Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, L.R.A.1915B, 834, Ann.Cas.1915C, 1177; Hall v. United States, 9 Cir., 1930, 41 F.2d 54; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 12 F.2d 926. As applied to the case at bar, then, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments only ......
-
Screven County v. Brier Creek Hunting & Fishing Club
...487, 490, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408, 154 A.L.R. 982; Entich v. Corrington, 1765, 19 Howell's State Trials, 1029; Hall v. United States, 9 Cir., 41 F.2d 54. The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the complaint dismissed for want of federal Reversed and rendered. ...
-
In re Guzzardi
...195; United States v. O'Connell, 2 Cir., 43 F.2d 1005; Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520; Hall v. United States, 9 Cir., 41 F.2d 54. This Amendment applies only to the national government and its agents. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed.......
-
People v. Randazzo
...... sole question certified to this court is: 'Do the 4th amendment to the constitution of the United States and sec. 19 of Article I of the constitution of California [220 Cal.App.2d 770] which ... (See, e. g., Hall v. U. S., 9 Cir., 41 F.2d 54; United States v. Jordan, D.C., 79 F.Supp. 411.). In ......