Lerskov v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 6077.,6077. |
| Citation | 4 F.2d 540 |
| Parties | LERSKOV v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
J. I. Howard and S. P. Freeling, both of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff in error.
W. A. Maurer, U. S. Atty., and James A. Ingraham, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Oklahoma City, Okl.
Before SANBORN and KENYON, Circuit Judges, and BOOTH, District Judge.
Plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted in the United States District Court of the Western District of Oklahoma on a charge of illegal possession of intoxicating liquors in Osage county, Okl., in violation of the federal statute prohibiting the possession of such liquors in Indian country.
Numerous assignments of error were filed, but in the presentation of the case reliance is placed upon four, all relating to the one question of alleged error of the court in permitting the government to introduce as evidence intoxicating liquors which were taken from the private automobile of defendant in the town of Bigheart, Osage county, Okl.; no search warrant having been procured authorizing the search of the automobile.
The parties who searched the automobile and produced as witnesses in court the liquor taken therefrom, and which was used as evidence, were G. O. Willis and J. H. Martin. Willis was the chief of police of Bigheart, Okl., and Martin was deputy sheriff of Osage county, Okl.
Defendant, accompanied by another man, drove into the town of Bigheart, and Willis and Martin noticed they were drunk when they got out of the car at the Main Street garage. Looking into the car they found the liquor which afterwards was introduced in evidence on the trial. Mr. Willis arrested the defendant.
It is urged that the taking of the liquor from the private automobile of defendant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the introduction of it a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Neither of these witnesses was an official of the federal government, or had any authority therefrom, and no official of the federal government was concerned with them in the alleged wrongful seizure of the intoxicating liquor. While it might seem that defendant's constitutional right of protection against unlawful search and seizure was as thoroughly infringed if a state officer unlawfully searched and took his property, turned it over to the government as evidence, and it was used against him on a trial in a federal court, as if the original search had been made by a prohibition officer or a federal employé, it has been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is not directed against individual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lotto v. United States
...v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L. R. 1159; Bruce v. United States, 8 Cir., 73 F.2d 972; Lerskov v. United States, 8 Cir., 4 F.2d 540; Elam v. United States, 8 Cir. 7 F.2d 887. But appellants contend that the evidence introduced at the hearing on the motion to ......
-
Gregg v. United States
...v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L.R. 1159; Miller v. United States, 3 Cir., 50 F.2d 505; Lerskov v. United States, 8 Cir., 4 F.2d 540; Bruce v. United States, 8 Cir., 73 F.2d 972; Crank v. United States, 8 Cir., 61 F.2d The judgment is affirmed. ...
-
In re Guzzardi
...in a prosecution in the national courts. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L.R. 1159; Lerskov v. United States, 10 Cir., 4 F.2d 540; Miller v. United States, 3 Cir., 50 F.2d 505; Schroeder v. United States, 2 Cir., 7 F.2d A return of property secured illeg......
-
United States v. Jordan
...34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, L.R.A.1915B, 834, Ann.Cas.1915C, 1177; Bruce et al. v. United States, 8 Cir., 73 F.2d 972. Lerskov v. United States, 8 Cir., 4 F.2d 540, Elam v. United States, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 887 and Lotto et al. v. United States, 8 Cir., 157 F.2d Counsel for the defendant has pr......