Patterson v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 5609.,5609. |
| Citation | 31 F.2d 737 |
| Parties | PATTERSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Edward H. Chavelle, of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
Anthony Savage, U. S. Atty., and Tom De Wolfe, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.
The appellant was convicted under five counts of an indictment, one of which charged him with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and the others charged him with prior convictions of similar offenses. There was evidence on the trial that two United States marshals went to a certain apartment house in the city of Seattle, and, on being informed by the landlady that the appellant lived there, they requested her to show them his room; that she took them to a room and unlocked it, and the witnesses on entering it found five one-gallon bottles of intoxicating liquor, some personal effects, and a suitcase, the latter containing letters addressed to the appellant; that soon thereafter the officers arrested the appellant as he came into the house; and that, when he was arrested, he admitted that the suitcase was his own and that bath robes and effects in the room were his. The appellant testified that the room in which the liquor and suitcase were found was not his room, that the liquor was not his, and that the room was occupied by his brother, William Patterson. William Patterson testified that the room was occupied by him, and that, although the suitcase belonged to the appellant, the appellant did not occupy the room. He testified further that the liquor was his, and that he had it for his own use.
During the course of the trial, a motion was made on behalf of the appellant to suppress the evidence of possession of the liquor on the ground that it was wrongfully and unlawfully obtained and in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant. No prior motion having been made for the suppression of the evidence, under the settled rule the motion was made too late to avail the appellant; he having had knowledge of the seizure at the time when it was made, MacDaniel v. United States (C. C. A.) 294 F. 769; Cardenti v. United States (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 783; Souza v. United States (C. C. A.) 5 F.(2d) 9; and in any view the appellant's denial of ownership of the liquor precluded him from claiming that it was seized in violation of constitutional rights. Cantrell v. United States (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 953; Rosenberg v. United States (C. C. A.) 15...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elkins v. United States
...was immaterial, if true; for, as indicated above, the Federal search and seizure were made on September 5, 1956. 19 Patterson v. United States, 9 Cir., 31 F.2d 737; Kwong How v. United States, 9 Cir., 71 F.2d 71; Whitcombe v. United States, 3 Cir., 90 F.2d 290; Creech v. United States, 5 Ci......
-
McSwain v. State
... ... It has been ... consistently applied and followed by the Supreme Court of the ... United States for many years. It has been recognized and ... followed in almost every state and country ... harmony with that rule ... In ... Patterson v. United States (1929), 31 F.2d ... 737, where no motion to suppress the evidence was made before ... ...
-
Bogish, Application of
...States v. Wernecke, 138 F.2d 561 (7 Cir. 1943), certiorari denied 321 U.S. 771, 64 S.Ct. 529, 88 L.Ed. 1066 (1944); Patterson v. United States, 31 F.2d 737 (9 Cir. 1929); Brink v. United States, 60 F.2d 231 (6 Cir. 1932) certiorari denied 287 U.S. 667, 53 S.Ct. 291, 77 L.Ed. 575 (1932); Har......
-
Rhodes v. United States
...seized, constitutes a waiver. United States v. Salli, 2 Cir., 115 F.2d 292; Moore v. Aderhold, 10 Cir., 108 F.2d 729; Patterson v. United States, 9 Cir., 31 F.2d 737, 738; Rossini v. United States, 8 Cir., 6 F.2d 350, 352-353; United States v. Sferas, 7 Cir., 210 F.2d 69, 74, certiorari den......