Hester v. United States, 243

Decision Date05 May 1924
Docket NumberNo. 243,243
Citation44 S.Ct. 445,68 L.Ed. 898,265 U.S. 57
PartiesHESTER v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

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 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 by Hester's father and drove off. The officers had no warrant for search or arrest, and it is contended that this made their evidence inadmissible, it being assumed, on the strength of the pursuing officer's saying that he supposed they were on Hester's land, that such was the fact. It is obvious that even if there had been a trespass, the above testimony was not obtained by an illegal search or seizure. The defendant's own acts, and those of his associates, disclosed the jug, the jar and the bottle—and there was no seizure in the sense of the law when the officers examined the contents of each after it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1003 cases
  • Cobb v. Wyrick
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • June 20, 1974
    ...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 States Supr......
  • People v. Maltz
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1971
    ...v. Willard, 238 Cal.App.2d 292, 298--307, 47 Cal.Rptr. 734.) Based upon the 'open fields' doctrine of Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 58--59, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898, 899--900, a number of cases indicated that the open areas surrounding a private residence and, indeed, some outbuil......
  • Sterling, Application of
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 9, 1965
    ...the courts have shown considerable liberality in validating police access to observation and listening posts. (Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (trespass on land); People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 775, 290 P.2d 855 (looking through window); People v. Foster, 199 C......
  • People v. Sirhan
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 16, 1972
    ...1623, 1634, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (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).' (Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 993, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067.) Even if an officer may have ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Street Legal. A Guide to Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for Police, Prosecutors, and Defenders
    • January 1, 2007
    ...United States v., 444 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2006) 33 Herrera, United States v., 810 F.2d 989 (10th Cir. 1987) 155 Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924) 138 TABLE OF CASES 347 Hester, People v., 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 377 (Cal. App. 2004) 35 Hester, State v., 584 A.2d 256 (N.J. Super. 1990) 5......
  • Searches of the home
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Fourth amendment searches and seizures
    • April 1, 2022
    ...includes the curtilage. Oliver v. United States , 466 U.S. 170 (1984). It does not include an open field. Hester v. United States , 265 U.S. 57 (1924) (open field is not subject to search warrant rule); Oliver v. United States , 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (information gathering in an open field is......
  • The warrantless interception of e-mail: Fourth Amendment search or free rein for the police?
    • United States
    • Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal Vol. 36 No. 2, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)). (251.) Id. at 451 (plurality opinion). (252.) Id. (253.) 466 U.S. 170 (1984). (254.) 265 U.S. 57, 59 (255.) The Court has defined curtilage to conceptually be "the area immediately surrounding a dwelling house." United States v. Dunn, 480 ......
  • Searches of the home
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...includes the curtilage. Oliver v. United States , 466 U.S. 170 (1984). It does not include an open ield. Hester v. United States , 265 U.S. 57 (1924) (open ield is not subject to search warrant rule); Oliver v. United States , 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (information gathering in an open ield is no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT