Nathanson v. United States, No. 39

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcREYNOLDS
PartiesNATHANSON v. UNITED STATES
Docket NumberNo. 39
Decision Date06 November 1933

290 U.S. 41
54 S.Ct. 11
78 L.Ed. 159
NATHANSON

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 39.
Argued Oct. 9, 1933.
Decided Nov. 6, 1933.

Mr. Frederic M. P. Pearse, of Newark, N.J. (Mr. Max Mehler, of Newark, N.J., on the brief), for petitioner.

Page 42

The Attorney General and Mr. Angus D. MacLean, Asst. Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 42-44 intentionally omitted]

Page 44

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the trial court where he was defendant under a criminal information, petitioner Nathanson duly, but unsuccessfully, challenged the admission as evidence of certain liquors seized under color of a search warrant issued, he claimed, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against him.

Upon complaint of the customs agent in charge, a state judge sent out the questioned warrant. Its pertinent recitals and command follow:

'Whereas said Francis B. Laughlin has stated under his oath that he has cause to suspect and does believe that certain merchandise, to wit: Certain liquors of foreign origin a more particular description of which cannot be given, upon which the duties have not been paid, or which has otherwise been brought into the United States contrary to law, and that said merchandise is now deposited and contained within the premises of J. J. Nathanson said premises being described as a 2 story frame dwelling located at 117 No. Bartram Ave. * * *; and

'Whereas said Francis B. Laughlin has requested that a warrant issue to him, authorizing him to enter said premises and search for and seize said merchandise:

Page 45

'Now, therefore, you are commanded, in the name and by the authority of the President of the United States, to enter and search the premises hereinbefore described, in the daytime (if a dwelling house) at any time of the day or night (if other than a dwelling house) and to seize and take into your possession the merchandise hereinbefore described, or so much thereof as may be found, to the end that the same may be dealt with according to law.'

The Circuit Court of Appeals said: 'The appellant contends that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued showed no facts upon which to base a finding of probable cause; that the search warrant was therefore illegal; and that the use of the property so seized as evidence in a criminal prosecution amounted to a violation of the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. * * *

'Had this warrant issued under authority of the Prohibition Act, it would be invalid, since the affidavit was merely based upon cause to suspect and suspicion. It issued, however, under the authority of (section 595) the Tariff Act of 1930 * * *' 46 Stat. 752, c. 497 (19 USCA § 1595). (This is identical with section 595, Tariff Act of 1922, 42 Stat. 983, c. 356 (19 USCA § 499) copied in the margin1.)

And it held: 'In the instant case the seizure was under the tariff laws. The government had a pecu-

Page 46

niary interest in the smuggled goods. Following the reasoning in the cases cited, we conclude that that interest was sufficient to justify...

To continue reading

Request your trial
513 practice notes
  • Illinois v. Gates, No. 81-430
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 13 Octubre 1982
    ...home and car. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 109, n. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, n. 1, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159 (1933). The Illinois Supreme Court also properly recognized that Detective Mader's affidavit might be capable of ......
  • U.S. v. Koons, No. 01-3177.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 29 Agosto 2002
    ...tips, see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 109, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), or mere suspicion, see Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 44, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159 (1933), but the affidavit in this case involved a corroborated tip. The Supreme Court has "consistently recogniz......
  • People v. French, No. A130599.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 14 Diciembre 2011
    ...on which warrants are issued.” ( Gates, at p. 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, discussing [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 393]Nathanson v. United States (1933) 290 U.S. 41, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159( Nathanson ); see also Aguilar v. Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108, 114–115, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723( Aguilar ), overrul......
  • People v. Duncan, Cr. 11224
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 26 Julio 1974
    ...12 L.Ed.2d 723; Giordenello v. United States (1958), 357 U.S. 480, 486, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503; Nathanson v. United States (1933), 290 U.S. 41, 47, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159.) It fails to set forth the nature of the office and the authority of the 'customs employee' who discovered th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
512 cases
  • Illinois v. Gates, No. 81-430
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 13 Octubre 1982
    ...home and car. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 109, n. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, n. 1, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159 (1933). The Illinois Supreme Court also properly recognized that Detective Mader's affidavit might be capable of ......
  • U.S. v. Koons, No. 01-3177.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 29 Agosto 2002
    ...tips, see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 109, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), or mere suspicion, see Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 44, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159 (1933), but the affidavit in this case involved a corroborated tip. The Supreme Court has "consistently recogniz......
  • People v. French, No. A130599.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 14 Diciembre 2011
    ...on which warrants are issued.” ( Gates, at p. 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, discussing [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 393]Nathanson v. United States (1933) 290 U.S. 41, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159( Nathanson ); see also Aguilar v. Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108, 114–115, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723( Aguilar ), overrul......
  • People v. Duncan, Cr. 11224
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 26 Julio 1974
    ...12 L.Ed.2d 723; Giordenello v. United States (1958), 357 U.S. 480, 486, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503; Nathanson v. United States (1933), 290 U.S. 41, 47, 54 S.Ct. 11, 78 L.Ed. 159.) It fails to set forth the nature of the office and the authority of the 'customs employee' who discovered th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • POLICING SUSPICION: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND 'CLEARLY ESTABLISHED' STANDARDS OF PROOF.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 112 Nbr. 1, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...379 U.S. 89, 97 (1964)). (78) Id. at 21-22 (1968) (internal quotation marks omitted). (79) Id. at 22, 27. (80) Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 47 (1933); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, (81) But see Craig S. Lerner, Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches, 59 VAND. L. REV. 407, 415 (......

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