Hysler v. United States, 8118.

Decision Date12 January 1937
Docket NumberNo. 8118.,8118.
Citation86 F.2d 918
PartiesHYSLER v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Wm. Joe Sears, Jr., and A. Dana Brown, both of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

Herbert S. Phillips, U. S. Atty., of Tampa, Fla., for the United States.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted on two counts of an indictment. The first count charged the unlawful possession of 37 gallons of whisky, contained in one 20-gallon keg, one 10-gallon keg and two 5-gallon bottles, upon which the tax had not been paid and to which containers stamps had not been affixed as required by law, in violation of the Liquor Taxing Act of 1934 (Title 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 1152a to 1152g). The second count charged the unlawful concealment of the same liquor, with intent to defraud the United States of the tax thereon, in violation of Revised Statutes, § 3450 (title 26, § 1441 U.S.C.A.). A general sentence of imprisonment for a year and a day and a fine of $100 was imposed. Error is assigned to the overruling of a motion to quash a search warrant, in the execution of which the liquor was discovered in the residence of defendant, and to suppress the evidence obtained thereby; to the overruling of objections to the admission of the said evidence; and to the denial of a directed verdict. These assignments may be considered together.

The search warrant objected to was issued by a United States Commissioner on a mimeographed form, which was headed "Internal Revenue Search Warrant (Under Section 3462 Revised Statutes 26 U.S.C.A. § 1502 and note)." It was addressed to "George A. L. Cook, a civil officer of the United States, his agents or deputies or any or either of them" and authorized the search of certain described premises for nontax paid spirits and the seizure of any such liquor found therein. In its concluding paragraph the warrant purports to be issued under title 11 of the Act of Congress, approved June 15, 1917 (Espionage Act, chapter 18, title 18 U.S.C.A. § 611 et seq). It is not contended that the description of the premises to be searched and the property expected to be found therein is insufficient or that the warrant did not issue upon probable cause. It was shown that the warrant was executed personally by Cook, who was an investigator of the Alcohol Taxing Unit.

The contention of appellant is that the search warrant was an internal revenue search warrant, issued under the provisions of Revised Statutes 3462 and not under the provisions of the Espionage Act; that therefore the Commissioner issuing the warrant had no authority to order a seizure of any property discovered; that addressing the warrant to Cook, his agents, or deputies was also a defect, as an investigator of the Alcohol Taxing Unit has no agents or deputies. It is urged that these defects are fatal, rendering the search illegal and the evidence thereby obtained inadmissible against appellant. In the view we take of the case, it is unnecessary to review the authorities cited by appellant in support of these contentions.

The form on which the warrant was issued is loosely drawn. Perhaps designating it an internal revenue search warrant was intended to identify the form, but the reference to that law and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re No. 32 East Sixty-Seventh Street
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 11, 1938
    ...of those three statutes as well as under the Espionage Act, 40 Stat. 217. Conyer v. United States, 6 Cir., 80 F.2d 292; Hysler v. United States, 5 Cir., 86 F.2d 918. But the offenses charged in the case at bar, smuggling and concealing merchandise, are only misdemeanors. 19 U.S.C.A. § 1593.......
  • Clay v. United States, 16385.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 28, 1957
    ...F.2d 444; Walker v. U. S., 5 Cir., 225 F.2d 447; Flores v. United States, 234 F.2d 604; Lowery v. U. S., 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 30; Hysler v. U. S., 5 Cir., 86 F.2d 918; Dixon v. United States, 5 Cir., 211 F.2d 547; Clifton v. United States, 4 Cir., 224 F. 2d 329; Cannon v. United States, 5 Cir.,......
  • State v. Cook
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 1968
    ...operation or maintenance of the lottery could be treated as surplusage from the command to search the premises. See Hysler v. United States, 86 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1937); Ray v. United States, 10 F.2d 359 (6th Cir. 1926); Dow v. State, supra; Giordano v. State, 203 Md. 174, 100 A.2d 31 (1953......
  • Nuckols v. United States, 7081
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 30, 1938
    ...that nothing in it shall be held to repeal or impair existing provisions of law regulating search and seizure. Cf. Hysler v. United States, 5 Cir., 86 F.2d 918, 919. There is nothing in Kleindienst v. United States, 48 App.D.C. 190, in conflict with our holding in this respect. In that case......
  • 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