Robinson v. United States

• Decision Date: 08 October 1923
• Docket Number: 4010.
• Citation: 292 F. 683
• Parties: ROBINSON v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

292 F. 683

ROBINSON v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4010.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 08, 1923

Adam Beeler, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff in error.

Thomas P. Revelle, U.S. Atty., and De Wolfe Emory, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Seattle, Wash.

Before HUNT and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges, and BOURQUIN, District Judge.

HUNT Circuit Judge.

Robinson asks reversal of a judgment of conviction of having violated the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305). Prior to the filing of an information in the federal court, officials of King county, Wash., swore to a complaint charging Robinson with violation of the state prohibition law (Laws 1915, p. 2 as amended by Laws 1917, p. 46). Search warrant was issued by a justice of the peace for the state of Washington at Seattle, in King county, Wash. The warrant directed search of certain premises described as being in King county; but the sheriff, exceeding the limits of his jurisdiction, seized two stills and a quantity of liquor and mash upon premises in Snohomish county. At a later time the United States district attorney filed the information under which Robinson was convicted in the United States District Court. Prior to trial in the federal court, Robinson moved to suppress the evidence, which the United States attorney intended to use against him, upon the ground that the search warrant issued by the justice of the peace in King county, Wash., was executed in Snohomish county, and was illegal, as the justice of the peace had no power to issue a warrant for search outside of King county, and because the officers of King county had no power to execute the search warrant outside of King county. The court overruled the motion, and the evidence was used, and thus arose the question whether the defendant's rights were violated.

Granting that under the warrant issued by the justice of the peace county authorities had no right to seize liquor and stills situated in Snohomish county, yet there is nothing tending to show that there was any participation in the search and seizure by officials of the United States, or that the federal authorities knew of the wrongful search and seizure. The fact that property seized was afterwards turned over to the prosecuting officers of the federal government does not affect the admissibility of the evidence. The Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure is a restraint upon the federal government and its agents, and is not directed to the individual conduct of state officials. The Fifth Amendment was intended to protect the citizen from compulsory testimony against himself, with reference to the offense under prosecution. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 Sup.Ct. 574 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L.R. 1159; McGrew v. United States (C.C.A.) 281 F. 809; Hirata v. United States (C.C.A.) 290 F. 197. Any question of possible redress against those who illegally seized the still and liquor is irrelevant in this proceeding.

It is also contended that, in a criminal case tried in the United States courts in the district of Washington, the law of Washington, as it existed at the time of the admission of that state into the Union, should control, and that evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure by state officers would not have been admissible in Washington at the time of the admission of that territory into the Union, and is therefore now incompetent in the federal court. We are cited to section 143, Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington, which provides that the common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or the state of Washington, nor incompatible with the institutions and conditions of society in Washington, shall be the rule of decision in all of the courts of the state, and to the Constitution of the state of Washington, article 1, sections 7 and 9, which provide (section 7) against invasion of a person's home without authority of law, and (section 9) that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

But long before the date of the admission of the territory of Washington into the Union the rule was against the position of the plaintiff in error. In Legatt v. Tollervey (decided in 1811) 14 East, 302, in an action for malicious prosecution of the plaintiff by defendant for a felony, Lord Ellenborough held that, while it was the duty of an officer charged with the custody of records of the court not to produce a record unless on competent authority, nevertheless, if, even without authority, the officer has given a copy of a record, or produces the original, such evidence was not inadmissible. In Jordan v. Lewis, H. 13 Geo. II, B.R., where a copy of an instrument was objected to because the judge had refused to grant a copy, the court declined to refuse receiving the paper in evidence, and declined to take notice in what manner such copy was obtained. In Commonwealth v. Dana (1841) 2 Metc. (Mass.) 329, in a criminal prosecution, a copy of a search warrant issued by the police court was offered and objected to on the ground that the same had been issued improvidently and was void in law. Many English cases were reviewed by the court, which said that, admitting that the lottery tickets and materials there seized were illegally taken, still that constituted no legal objection to the admission of them in evidence. The court said: 'If the search warrant were illegal, or if the officer serving the warrant exceeded his authority, the party on whose complaint the warrant issued, or the officer, would be responsible for the wrong done; but this is no good reason for excluding the papers seized as evidence, if they were pertinent to the issues, as they unquestionably were.'

More recent authorities hold to a like doctrine. In State v Griswold, 67 Conn. 290, 34 A. 1046, 33 L.R.A. 227, decided in 1896, defendant was charged with arson. After his arrest police officers without warrant went to defendant's office and found an envelope, which contained certain pictures which became material. The envelope and pictures were offered in evidence, and their admission was objected to on the ground that the seizure was in violation of the constitutional guaranty that people should be secure in their persons, houses, and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the production of the papers in evidence was a violation...