Panzich v. United States, 3868.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Citation285 F. 871
Docket Number3868.
PartiesPANZICH et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Decision Date11 December 1922

285 F. 871

PANZICH et al.
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 3868.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

December 11, 1922


Rehearing Denied February 26, 1923.

Thos. P. White, Alfred L. Bartlett, and Lewis B. Randall, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs in error.

Joseph C. Burke, U.S. Atty., and Mark L. Herron, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges. [285 F. 872]

HUNT, Circuit Judge.

Under the first assignment of error it is argued that the court erred because it refused to hear a petition for the return of certain wines and liquors which had been seized by prohibition officers, and in admitting testimony concerning the condition and possession of such seized property.

The petition for the return of the wines and liquors seized was presented after plea, but before trial, and was based upon the ground that the officers entered the house of defendants and in violation of their rights seized the property. The court merely declined to hear the motion before the evidence was adduced. The judge said:

'Not that I refuse-- yes; I do decline to hear the motion now under the circumstances; but I do not say that I will not entertain a motion to exclude the evidence, if, during the trial, it appears that it was illegally obtained. You lose nothing by the motion not being heard. I do not care whether that question arises during the trial or before the trial. If at any time during the trial of any case it is apparent that the evidence was illegally obtained, I will entertain a motion to exclude it.'

We are clearly of the opinion that no error was committed in not passing upon the motion before the facts and circumstances were brought out.

The evidence was that on the night of October 23, 1920, the alleged date of the commission of the offenses charged, the prohibition officers went near the outside of the house of the defendants, and there saw a number of automobiles; that men were going in and out; that the officers searched some of the machines as they were leaving the vicinity, and found wine and beer; that thereafter one of the officers rang the bell of the defendants' house; that as the door was opened two men started out of the door; that the officer stopped the men and entered the house, and told the men that he was an officer and to wait; that his purpose was to make arrests; that he saw liquor, and upon search of the premises found a considerable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Austin v. United States, No. 8317.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • November 21, 1961
    ...right to postpone until the time of trial consideration of the question of suppression of evidence. Panzich v. United States, 9 Cir., 285 F. 871; United States v. Lester, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 21 F.R.D. 30; United States v. Leiser, D.C.Mass., 16 F.R.D. 199; United States v. Johnson, D.C.M.D.Pa., 76......
  • Cogen v. United States, No. 89
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1929
    ...Ed. 647; Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 34, 35, 46 S. Ct. 4, 70 L. Ed. 145, 51 A. L. R. 409; Panzich v. United States (C. C. A.) 285 F. 871, 872. It is not true that the order on such a motion deals with a matter distinct from the general subject of the litigation. Usually the main......
  • Feinberg v. United States, No. 6388
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 11, 1924
    ...v. United States (C. C. A.) 289 F. 249, 250; Fassolla v. United States (C. C. A.) 285 F. 378, 379; Panzich v. United States (C. C. A.) 285 F. 871, Exception was taken to a portion of the instructions wherein the court, after stating that anybody who takes part in the violation of the law is......
  • United States v. QUANTITY OF CONTRABAND LIQUOR, ETC., No. 3811.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 6, 1930
    ...either ignored or by implication challenged the propriety of this rule. We think it was applicable. Panzich v. United States (C. C. A. 9th) 285 F. 871; Filippelli v. United States (C. C. A. 9th) 6 F.(2d) 121; Barker v. United States (C. C. A.) 289 F. 249; Singleton v. United States (C. C. A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Austin v. United States, No. 8317.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • November 21, 1961
    ...right to postpone until the time of trial consideration of the question of suppression of evidence. Panzich v. United States, 9 Cir., 285 F. 871; United States v. Lester, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 21 F.R.D. 30; United States v. Leiser, D.C.Mass., 16 F.R.D. 199; United States v. Johnson, D.C.M.D.Pa., 76......
  • Cogen v. United States, No. 89
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1929
    ...Ed. 647; Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 34, 35, 46 S. Ct. 4, 70 L. Ed. 145, 51 A. L. R. 409; Panzich v. United States (C. C. A.) 285 F. 871, 872. It is not true that the order on such a motion deals with a matter distinct from the general subject of the litigation. Usually the main......
  • Feinberg v. United States, No. 6388
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 11, 1924
    ...v. United States (C. C. A.) 289 F. 249, 250; Fassolla v. United States (C. C. A.) 285 F. 378, 379; Panzich v. United States (C. C. A.) 285 F. 871, Exception was taken to a portion of the instructions wherein the court, after stating that anybody who takes part in the violation of the law is......
  • United States v. QUANTITY OF CONTRABAND LIQUOR, ETC., No. 3811.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 6, 1930
    ...either ignored or by implication challenged the propriety of this rule. We think it was applicable. Panzich v. United States (C. C. A. 9th) 285 F. 871; Filippelli v. United States (C. C. A. 9th) 6 F.(2d) 121; Barker v. United States (C. C. A.) 289 F. 249; Singleton v. United States (C. C. A......
  • 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