Hunt v. Evans

• Decision Date: 04 January 1926
• Docket Number: No. 4271.,4271.
• Parties: HUNT v. EVANS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

56 App. DC 97, 10 F.2d 892 (1926)

HUNT v. EVANS et al.

No. 4271.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted December 10, 1925.

Decided January 4, 1926.

S. McC. Hawken and G. F. Havell, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

F. H. Stephens, W. H. Wahly, and J. A. O'Shea, all of the Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff below, now the appellant, sued for damages, alleging that the defendants were officers of the law charged with the duty of policemen, and that on January 18, 1921, with force and violence they wrongfully entered and searched plaintiff's home, without any warrant or other legal process, and then and there arrested plaintiff, without any process of law or reasonable cause or excuse, but simply upon the explanation that plaintiff was suspected of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors in his residence.

The defendants filed their respective pleas, to which the plaintiff filed a general demurrer. This was overruled by the lower court, whereupon, the plaintiff electing to stand upon his demurrer, judgment was entered for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed. Accordingly the sole question before us is whether the lower court erred in overruling the plaintiff's demurrer.

The pleas in question set out in substance that at the times in question two of the defendants below were duly authorized and acting federal prohibition agents and deputies of the federal Prohibition Commissioner, internal revenue officer of the United States for the District of Columbia, and that the other three defendants were police officers of the District; that on January 18, 1921, upon the sworn complaint of one of said agents that he had positive information that intoxicating liquor was being sold and stored at the premises of E. J. Dowling, 322 Seaton Place, N. E., Washington, D. C., as a fraud upon the United States, and in violation of the National Prohibition Act, a United States commissioner for the District of Columbia duly issued a search warrant, directed as authorized by law, setting forth said complaint, and commanding that said premises be entered and searched concerning said fraud; that upon the request of said deputies the defendant police officers were assigned to assist them in making the search; that at about 9 o'clock p. m., on said day, the defendants went to the described premises, knocked at the door, and when it was opened by the plaintiff inquired for E. J. Dowling, who was named in the affidavit and warrant as the occupant of the premises; that plaintiff then informed them that no such person resided there; that they then made their identity and business known to plaintiff, who declared himself to be a member of the police force, and "invited defendants to enter and satisfy themselves that no violation of law was being committed upon his (plaintiff's) premises, and that he would prefer that they do so, in order to clear himself and his premises of any suspicion of wrongdoing; and that thereupon, the door of said premises being open, defendants did enter the home of plaintiff, upon his invitation as aforesaid, and made a casual...