Hester v. United States, No. 243
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES |
| Citation | 44 S.Ct. 445,68 L.Ed. 898,265 U.S. 57 |
| Parties | HESTER v. UNITED STATES |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 243 |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Mr. Richard A. Ford, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., and Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiff in error, Hester, was convicted of concealing distilled spirits, etc., under Rev. St. § 3296 (Comp. St. § 6038). The case is brought here directly from the District Court on the single ground that by refusing to exclude the testimony of two witnesses and to direct a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff in error, the Court violated his
Page 58
rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
The witnesses whose testimony is objected to were revenue officers. In consequence of information they went toward the house of Hester's father, where the plaintiff in error lived, and as they approached saw one Henderson drive near to the house. They concealed themselves from fifty to one hundred yards away and saw Hester come out and hand Henderson a quart bottle. An alarm was given. Hester went to a car standing near, took a gallon jug from it and he and Henderson ran. One of the officers pursued, and fired a pistol. Hester dropped his jug, which broke but kept about a quart of its contents. Henderson threw away his bottle also. The jug and bottle both contained what the officers, being experts, recognized as moonshine whisky, that is, whisky illicitly distilled; said to be easily recognizable. The other officer entered the house, but being told there was no whisky there left it, but found outside a jar that had been thrown out and broken and that also contained whisky. While the officers were there other cars stopped at the house but were spoken to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Altman v. City of High Point, N.C., No. 02-1178.
...open fields are not "effects" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, reaffirming Justice Holmes' opinion in Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924). See Oliver, 466 U.S. at 176, 104 S.Ct. 1735. As discussed above, the Court also stated that the Framers w......
-
Donovan v. Dewey, No. 80-901
...Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects,' is not extended to the open fields." Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59, 44 S.Ct. 445, 446, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924). I necessarily reserve judgment on the extent to which the Fourth Amendment would prevent the implem......
-
Ward v. City of Hobbs, No. CIV 18-1025 JB\KRS
...-- even if those fields are privately owned -- because such fields are not enumerated in the Amendment's text. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 [ S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 ] ... (1924).But when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals. Florida v. Jardines, 569 ......
-
Cobb v. Wyrick, Civ. A. No. 73CV49-W-1-3.
...S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, 743 (1963); United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202 (1927); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924). An excellent analysis of the long-standing "plain view" doctrine is set forth in the landmark United State......
-
Cobb v. Wyrick, Civ. A. No. 73CV49-W-1-3.
...S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, 743 (1963); United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202 (1927); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924). An excellent analysis of the long-standing "plain view" doctrine is set forth in the landmark United State......
-
Soldal v. County of Cook, No. 89-3631
...intrusion in the privacy of the [plaintiff's] offices." Of similar character are the "open field" cases, such as Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924), and Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984). And see Autoworld Speci......
-
Reid v. Pautler, No. CIV 13-0337 JB/KBM
...-- even if those fields are privately owned -- because such fields are not enumerated in the Amendment's text. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 . . . (1924). But when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals.133 S. Ct. at 1414. In United States v. Alabi, 943 F. S......
-
Wilson v. Jara, No. CIV 10–0797 JB/WPL.
...her house” a warrantless arrest is permissible. United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. at 42, 96 S.Ct. 2406 (citing Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924)). The Tenth Circuit, in McKinnon v. Carr, 103 F.3d 934 (10th Cir.1996), upheld a warrantless arrest whe......
-
STINGRAY STUNG? ANALYZING CELLPHONES AS EFFECTS PROVIDES FOURTH AMENDMENT TREATMENT.
...States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012). (143.) United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 705-06 (1983). (144.) H est er v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 (1924); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 176 (145.) Brady, supra note 137, at 960 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Oliver......
-
Locked Out or Locked Up: The Need for New Guidelines for Compelled Decryption.
...(1914) (holding Fourth Amendment limited government power and secured people, their houses, papers, and effects); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 (1924) (holding Fourth Amendment protections not applicable to open fields); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 359 (1967) (prohibitin......