In re Mobile
| Decision Date | 03 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | 16854. |
| Parties | In re MOBILE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Theodore H. McGiehan, of New Orleans, La., for petitioner.
Louis H. Burns, U.S., Atty., of New Orleans, La.
In this case it appears that a copper still, a quantity of mash and some alcohol were removed from the residence of Charles Mobile, No. 917 St. James street, in the city of New Orleans and he has filed a petition praying for the return of his property, or that it be destroyed according to law, on the ground that his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution were violated by its seizure. The object is, of course, to prevent the introduction of the still and other property in evidence against petitioner on the trial of a criminal information for violation of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305).
The undisputed facts are these: Kuepferle, a city detective, was assigned to arrest vendors of lottery tickets suspected of operating in the vicinity of petitioner's home. For several days he observed numbers of men entering the gate of the alleyway along the side of petitioner's house. At about 10:40 a.m. of the 6th of January, 1922, he entered the gate, which was not locked, and as he did so a dog barked. Thereupon the petitioner opened the door of his kitchen, and the officer, looking through the door from the alley, saw the still in full operation. The officer had no warrant to arrest petitioner for any offense, and no search warrant.
The petitioner voluntarily stated that he was a longshoreman, and had been hurt, and that he was out of work, and was making a little 'booze,' which he sold. The officer arrested petitioner and took charge of the still, mash, and liquor and to this the petitioner made no objection whatever. The still and other property were taken to the police station. Prohibition officers of the United States were then notified by the police, and the property was turned over to them.
Under the provisions of the National Prohibition Act it is unlawful to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. It is also made unlawful to possess any liquor or property designed for the manufacture of liquor intended for use in violating the provisions of the act. For the purpose of enforcing the law a search warrant may issue, on probable cause shown, to search any premises whatever. It is further provided,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. United States
...States, 9 Cir., 11 F.2d 503; Cheng Wai v. United States, 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 915; cf. United States v. Borkowski, D.C., 268 F. 408; In re Mobile, D.C., 278 F. 949; O'Connor v. United States, D.C., 281 F. 396; Vachina v. United States, 9 Cir., 283 F. 35; Furlong v. United States, 8 Cir., 10 F.2......
-
State v. Young
...either the federal or state constitution. State v. Hall, (Mo. Sup.) 278 S.W. 1028; State v. Pigg, 312 Mo. 212, 278 S.W. 1030; in re Mobile, (D. C.) 278 F. 949; Elrod v. (C. C. A.) 278 F. 123; Lambert v. U.S. (C. C. A.) 282 F. 413." To the same effect is the later case from the same court, S......
-
O'Connor v. United States
... ... Borkowski (D.C.) ... 268 F. 408; United States v. Kraus (D.C.) 270 F ... 578, 582; Kathriner v. United States (C.C.A. 9) 276 ... F. 808; Elrod v. Moss (C.C.A. 4) 278 F. 123; ... United States v. Bateman (D.C.) 278 F. 231; ... United States v. Snyder (D.C.) 278 F. 650; In re ... Mobile (D.C.) 278 F. 949) ... As to ... the cases cited by petitioner: In Weeks v. United ... States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 Sup.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, ... L.R.A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177, and Amos v ... United States, 255 U.S. 313, 41 Sup.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed ... 654, the defendants' ... ...
-
The State v. Loftis
...will not be in violation of either the Federal or State Constitution. [State v. Hall, 278 S.W. 1028; State v. Pigg, 278 S.W. 1030; In re Mobile, 278 F. 949; Elrod v. Moss, 278 F. 123; Lambert v. States, 282 F. 413.] In United States v. Snyder, 278 F. 650, in discussing the Fourth Amendment ......