Nichols v. United States, 13889.
| Decision Date | 22 July 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 13889.,13889. |
| Citation | 176 F.2d 431 |
| Parties | NICHOLS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
C. Floyd Huff, Jr., Hot Springs, Ark., for appellant.
David R. Boatright, Assistant United States Attorney, Fort Smith, Ark. (R. S. Wilson, United States Attorney, and Charles A. Beasley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Fort Smith, Ark., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.
The defendant (appellant), on January 15, 1948, was on the road from Hot Springs, Arkansas, to Arkadelphia, Arkansas, with 30 one-gallon jugs of non-tax-paid distilled spirits, commonly known as moonshine whiskey, hidden behind the back seat of his Plymouth sedan automobile. He was stopped by government officers (Investigators of the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Treasury Department), who, although they had no search warrant, searched his automobile, seized his whiskey, and arrested him. He was indicted for the possession and concealment of non-tax-paid whiskey. 26 U.S.C.A. § 2803 and § 3321. He made a motion to suppress the whiskey as evidence, on the ground that the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The District Court ruled that the search was legal. The defendant waived a jury trial, and was tried, convicted and sentenced by the court. He has appealed.
The sole questions for decision are: (1) the validity of the search, without a warrant, of the defendant's automobile; and (2) the propriety of the District Court's refusal to compel the officers to disclose the name of the informer who furnished them with probable cause to believe that the defendant would be on the road to Arkadelphia with a load of liquor the afternoon of January 15, 1948.
In denying the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, the District Court said 78 F.Supp. 483, 486:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burnett
...States, 267 F.2d 781 (6 Cir. 1959); United States v. One 1957 Ford Ranchero Pickup Truck, 265 F.2d 21 (10 Cir. 1959); Nichols v. United States, 176 F.2d 431 (8 Cir. 1949); McInes v. United States, 62 F.2d 180 (9 Cir. 1932); Goetz v. United States, 39 F.2d 903 (5 Cir. 1930); Mitrovich v. Uni......
-
Perez v. State
...den. 373 U.S. 922, 83 S.Ct. 1523, 10 L.Ed.2d 421. See also, People v. Bringardner, 233 Mich. 449, 206 N.W. 988 (1926); Nichols v. U.S., 176 F.2d 431 (8 Cir., 1949). In considering the evidence available to Officer Imboden, it was proper for the officer to take into consideration conditions ......
-
Drouin v. State
...the name of the informer who told him the car would be carrying contraband. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Nichols v. United States, 176 F.2d 431, held that the accused was not entitled to have disclosed the name of the informer who had furnished the government with probable......
-
State v. Dolce
...v. United States, 163 F.2d 627 (9 Cir., 1947). Cf. Harrington v. State, 110 So.2d 495, 497 (Fla.D.Ct.App.1959); Nichols v. United States, 176 F.2d 431 (8 Cir., 1949); McInes v. United States, 62 F.2d 180 (9 Cir., 1932), cert. denied, 288 U.S. 616, 53 S.Ct. 507, 77 L.Ed. 989 What is essentia......