McKnight v. United States, No. 10163.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtEDGERTON, BAZELON, and FAHY, Circuit
Citation183 F.2d 977,87 US App. DC 151
PartiesMcKNIGHT et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Decision Date28 June 1950
Docket NumberNo. 10163.

87 US App. DC 151, 183 F.2d 977 (1950)

McKNIGHT et al.
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 10163.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 15, 1950.

Decided June 28, 1950.


Curtis P. Mitchell, Washington, D. C., with whom B. Dabney Fox, J. Franklyn Bourne, and Frank D. Reeves, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Joseph M. Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Assistant United States Attorney, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, BAZELON, and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.

The appellants were convicted of carrying on a lottery known as the numbers game. They urge several points but we think only one requires discussion.

In 1948 police repeatedly trailed appellant McKnight over a regular route in Washington and had reason to believe he was a numbers "pick-up" man. Until September 29 they always lost him in traffic before he reached the end of his route. On that day, for the first time, they saw him enter a house at 910 Kent Place. The next day they got a warrant for his arrest, and also a warrant to search a house on Euclid Street. They got no warrant to search the house on Kent Place, apparently because they did not know enough about it.

Later in the same day a "raiding squad" waited near the Kent Place house while other officers trailed McKnight over his regular route. In approaching the house McKnight walked past an officer who was stationed in the street to signal the raiding squad when he entered the house. As the trial judge said, the officers "could have arrested him right then and there," in the street. But, as the government's brief concedes, "they purposely refrained from arresting him in the street * * *. The officers were given orders not to arrest McKnight until he had entered the house at 910 Kent Place; their object was to enter

183 F.2d 978
the house to arrest McKnight and incidentally to seize `any articles connected with the numbers game that were connected with McKnight in the arrest'."

When the members of the raiding squad got the signal that McKnight had entered the house they knocked, waited, heard a scuffle, and broke in. They arrested appellants McKnight, Washington, and King. They searched the whole house and seized numbers slips, a record of a numbers bet an officer had made with appellant Buxton in the Euclid Street house, and marked money he had handed her there. Everything seized was in plain sight, on tables in the second-floor room where McKnight was found and arrested.

Buxton moved to suppress certain evidence seized in the Euclid Street house. The other appellants moved to suppress the evidence seized in the Kent Place house. All these motions were overruled and all the seized evidence was admitted. The appellants were tried jointly and convicted.

Apart from the fact that here as in the Accarino case1 the officers failed to make known the cause of their demand for entry, the Kent Place facts come to this. The police planned to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 practice notes
  • United States v. Sohnen, No. 68-CR-233.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 10, 1969
    ...Constitution. Henderson v. United States, 4th Cir., 12 F.2d 528, 531, 51 A.L.R. 420." McKnight v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 183 F.2d 977, 978 See also, e, g., Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 500, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 1257, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958) ("The testimony of the fed......
  • United States v. Weaver, No. 13–3097.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • September 4, 2015
    ...Wilson, we determined that the knock-and-announce requirement was grounded in the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., McKnight v. United States, 183 F.2d 977, 978 (D.C.Cir.1950). And we applied the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of both the constitutional and statutory knock-a......
  • State v. James, No. 46857
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1964
    ...person already under arrest to his apartment prior to taking him to a police station. Cf. McKnight v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 183 F.2d 977. That the distance which the defendant was returned is not great in this case seems irrelevant. The Court is not inclined to prescribe an ar......
  • United States v. Payner, No. CR76-305.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • April 28, 1977
    ...(5th Cir., 1968); Taglavore v. United States, 291 F.2d 262, 265-267 (9th Cir., 1961); McKnight v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 183 F.2d 977, 978 (1950); Blazak v. Eyman, 339 F.Supp. 40, 42-43 (D.Ariz., 1971); United States v. Carriger, 541 F.2d 545, 553 (6th Cir., 1976); United State......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
90 cases
  • United States v. Sohnen, No. 68-CR-233.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 10, 1969
    ...Constitution. Henderson v. United States, 4th Cir., 12 F.2d 528, 531, 51 A.L.R. 420." McKnight v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 183 F.2d 977, 978 See also, e, g., Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 500, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 1257, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958) ("The testimony of the fed......
  • United States v. Weaver, No. 13–3097.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • September 4, 2015
    ...Wilson, we determined that the knock-and-announce requirement was grounded in the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., McKnight v. United States, 183 F.2d 977, 978 (D.C.Cir.1950). And we applied the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of both the constitutional and statutory knock-a......
  • State v. James, No. 46857
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1964
    ...person already under arrest to his apartment prior to taking him to a police station. Cf. McKnight v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 183 F.2d 977. That the distance which the defendant was returned is not great in this case seems irrelevant. The Court is not inclined to prescribe an ar......
  • United States v. Payner, No. CR76-305.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • April 28, 1977
    ...(5th Cir., 1968); Taglavore v. United States, 291 F.2d 262, 265-267 (9th Cir., 1961); McKnight v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 183 F.2d 977, 978 (1950); Blazak v. Eyman, 339 F.Supp. 40, 42-43 (D.Ariz., 1971); United States v. Carriger, 541 F.2d 545, 553 (6th Cir., 1976); United State......
  • 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