Jones v. United States, 2483

• Decision Date: 28 October 1942
• Docket Number: 2484.,No. 2483,2483
• Citation: 131 F.2d 539
• Parties: JONES v. UNITED STATES (two cases).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

131 F.2d 539 (1942)

JONES v. UNITED STATES (two cases).

Nos. 2483, 2484.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

October 28, 1942.

Luther Bohanon, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Bohanon & Adams, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.

William W. Godlove, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Lawton, Okl. (Charles E. Dierker, U. S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

BRATTON, Circuit Judge.

The grand jury in the United States Court for Western Oklahoma indicted Earl William Jones and Leo Jones on two counts. The first count charged that they entered into a conspiracy to transport intoxicating liquor into Oklahoma — the sale of such liquor, except for scientific, sacramental, medicinal, or mechanical purposes being prohibited by the laws of that state — in violation of section 3 of the Liquor Enforcement Act, 49 Stat. 1928, 27 U.S.C. A. § 223; and the second count charged that they transported approximately ten cases of assorted whiskey into Oklahoma. Earl Jones was convicted on both counts, and Leo Jones was convicted on the first and acquitted on the second. Both appealed.

Inspectors of the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Treasury Department searched an automobile being driven by Earl Jones and found intoxicating liquor in it. The search was made without a search warrant, and the liquor was seized. A motion seasonably made to suppress all evidence relating to the search and seizure was denied and the evidence admitted. That action of the court is challenged. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures, and it should be liberally construed to reasonably safeguard the right of privacy. Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L. Ed. 520; United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 52 S.Ct. 420, 76 L.Ed. 877, 82 A. L.R. 775; Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 53 S.Ct. 138, 77 L.Ed. 260, 85 A.L.R. 108.

This constitutional provision brings within its sweep the indiscriminate stopping and searching of automobiles on the highways on the mere chance that they contain contraband liquor. But an automobile may be searched without a search warrant on probable cause, that is where the searching officer has such information as would cause a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe in good faith that it is being used to transport intoxicating liquor in violation of law. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790; Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed. 629, 74 A.L.R. 1407; United States v. One 1937 Model Studebaker Sedan, 10 Cir., 96 F.2d 104.

The sale of intoxicating liquor was permitted in Texas but forbidden in Oklahoma, except in circumstances not pertinent here. Electra, Texas, is located near the line between the two states. The accused were associated together in the conduct of a liquor package store at Electra. There was a garage at the rear of the store. Inspectors for the Alcohol Tax Unit had the premises under surveillance from time to time for approximately three months prior to the time of the search and seizure in question. On three or four separate occasions during that time they observed an automobile drive into the garage and later leave and start in the direction of Oklahoma; and these automobiles were apprehended after they crossed into Oklahoma and were found to contain contraband liquor. With knowledge of these antecedent facts, on the day in question two inspectors observed a LaSalle automobile owned by one of the accused parked at the side entrance to the store...