Ludwig v. United States
| Citation | 3 F.2d 231 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 3425.,3425. |
| Parties | LUDWIG v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
A. W. Richter, of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff in error.
Roy L. Morse, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the United States.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
Defendant was indicted and convicted of manufacturing and possessing home brew beer with an alcoholic content in excess of one-half of 1 per cent. The government's case was established by the testimony of prohibition agents and the samples of liquor taken when the premises were visited prior to the return of the indictment. The testimony left no room for doubt as to defendant's guilt.
Defendant testified in his own behalf, and, after first offering some explanations and denials, finally fully admitted the manufacture of the liquor, its possession for purposes of sale, and also admitted making sales at his place of business. He testified that his customers were not satisfied with near beer, and that he used near beer as a base, and increased the alcoholic content by introducing malt syrup and then heating the mixture.
The only error assigned is the admission of the intoxicating liquor taken when the prohibition agents entered the saloon. The entry into the saloon was made by a state prohibition agent, and two United States prohibition agents accompanied him. The state agent was possessed of a search warrant, but it was conceded upon the trial that it was, for some reason not disclosed, invalid.
The state of Wisconsin has enacted statutes to further the enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment. In so doing it has provided for the appointment of prohibition enforcement officers and for the issuance of licenses to those engaged in the sale of nonintoxicating liquors to be consumed upon the premises where sold. It is further provided that the commissioner or his deputy, or any peace officer, may inspect such licensed premises at any reasonable time without a search warrant. In Silber v. Bloodgood, 177 Wis. 608, 188 N. W. 84, it was held that lawful authorities may inspect premises licensed for traffic in nonintoxicating liquors, and are empowered without a search warrant to force an entrance into a locked drawer in which was hidden a bottle of contraband whisky. See, also, Finsky v. State, 176 Wis. 481, 187 N. W. 201; Novak v. State (Wis.) 200 N. W. 369.
Mr. Bloodgood, the state agent, was not required to have with him a search warrant to justify his entry into defendant's premises, nor, for that matter, was it necessary, for any one who entered this saloon, a place licensed by the state of Wisconsin to sell nonintoxicating liquor, to have a legal process. Nor was the state agent limited to merely entering the building. He was not only authorized, but by the statute required, to inspect such premises to ascertain whether any beverage other than the nonintoxicating kind was being there manufactured or sold.
As the prohibition agents, state and national, entered the saloon, a woman seized a glass...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. United States.
...thereof is not so rigidly restricted as search of a private home. Smith v. United States, 70 App.D.C. 255, 105 F.2d 778; Ludwig v. United States, 7 Cir., 3 F.2d 231. We are satisfied that what was done in this connection and that what was related concerning it at the trial reveals no violat......
-
Smith v. United States, 7305.
...barber shop being a public place, the officers had a lawful right to enter either with or without a search warrant, see Ludwig v. United States, 7 Cir., 3 F.2d 231, and, since they observed appellant in the act of violating the law, his arrest with or without a warrant was lawful. By the sa......
-
United States v. Brown
...does not affect the admissibility in a federal prosecution of evidence procured through the search (Thomas v. U. S., supra; Ludwig v. U. S. C. C. A. 3 F.2d 231; Malacrauis v. U. S. C. C. A. 299 F. 253; Byars v. U. S. C. C. A. 4 F.2d In this case the evidence is that the police officer was a......
-
People v. Levy, 24654.
...time without a search warrant, was held effective in authorizing the officers to obtain entrance to the premises. Ludwig v. United States, 7 Cir., 3 F.2d 231. The purpose of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle act mentioned was to facilitate the discovery and prevention of thefts of automob......