Scher v. United States, No. 49

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcREYNOLDS
Citation305 U.S. 251,59 S.Ct. 174,83 L.Ed. 151
Docket NumberNo. 49
Decision Date05 December 1938
PartiesSCHER v. UNITED STATES

305 U.S. 251
59 S.Ct. 174
83 L.Ed. 151
SCHER

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 49.
Argued Nov. 9, 1938.
Decided Dec. 5, 1938.

Messrs. Gerald A. Doyle and A. L. Greenspun, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.

Page 252

Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Alexander Holtzoff, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner Scher was found guilty under two counts of an indictment which charged violations of section 201, Title 2, Liquor Taxing Act, January 11, 19341 by possessing

Page 253

and transporting distilled spirits in containers wanting requisite revenue stamps. He was sentenced for a year and a day, etc. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

No objection to the judge's charge is urged and the evidence submitted to the jury is adequate to support the verdict.

The material facts are not in serious dispute. A brief summation will suffice for the points to be considered.

Federal officers received confidential information thought to be reliable that about midnight, December 30, 1935, a Dodge automobile with specified license plate would transport 'phony' whiskey from a specified dwelling in Cleveland, Ohio. About nine-thirty officers posted nearby saw the described automobile stop in front of the house and remain there for an hour. A man with three women and a package then entered the car and drove away. It returned shortly before midnight, stopped at the rear of the house and remained for half an hour. The headlights were extinguished; the officers heard what seemed to be heavy paper packages passing over wood. Doors slammed; petitioner drove the car away, apparently heavily loaded. The officers followed in another car. After going a few blocks petitioner stopped briefly at a filling station; then he drove towards his own residence two or three blocks further along. The officers followed. He turned into a garage a few feet back of his residence and within the curtilage. One of the pursuing officers left their car and followed. As petitioner was getting out of his car this officer approached, announced his official character, and stated he was informed that the car was hauling bootleg liquor. Petitioner replied, 'just a little for a party.' Asked whether the liquor was tax paid, he replied that it was Canadian whiskey; also, he said it was in the trunk at the rear of the car. The officer opened the trunk and found eighty-eight bottles of distilled spirits in unstamped containers. He

Page 254

arrested petitioner and seized both car and liquor. The officer had no search warrant.

At the trial counsel undertook to question the arresting officers relative to the source of the information which led them to observe petitioner's actions. Objections to these...

To continue reading

Request your trial
285 practice notes
  • McCray v. State of Illinois, No. 159
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1967
    ...121 So. 278. 8. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2192 (McNaughton rev. 1961). 9. Rule 26, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 10. See Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151; In re Quarles & Butler, 158 U.S. 532, 15 S.Ct. 959, 39 L.Ed. 1080; Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 4 S.Ct. 12, 28 L......
  • Collins v. Commonwealth, Record No. 151277
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • March 28, 2019
    ...absence of direct precedent, by itself, does not sideline the exclusionary rule. But what does, we believe, is Scher v. United States , 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151 (1938), and the subsequent line of cases that applied the automobile exception to driveways without considering wh......
  • State v. Witherspoon, Nos. 54102
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1970
    ...the decisions following Carroll. C.f. Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed.2d 629 (1931); Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151 (1938); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); and Cooper v. California, 3......
  • Rosales v. Bradshaw, CIV 20-0751 JB/JHR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • November 17, 2021
    ...private driveway or carport.”)(citing United States v. McLaughlin, 578 F.2d 1180, 1183-84 (5th Cir. 1978)); Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 255 (1938)(“[I]t seems plain enough that just before he entered the garage the following officers properly could have stopped petitioner's car, m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
285 cases
  • McCray v. State of Illinois, No. 159
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1967
    ...121 So. 278. 8. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2192 (McNaughton rev. 1961). 9. Rule 26, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 10. See Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151; In re Quarles & Butler, 158 U.S. 532, 15 S.Ct. 959, 39 L.Ed. 1080; Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 4 S.Ct. 12, 28 L......
  • Collins v. Commonwealth, Record No. 151277
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • March 28, 2019
    ...absence of direct precedent, by itself, does not sideline the exclusionary rule. But what does, we believe, is Scher v. United States , 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151 (1938), and the subsequent line of cases that applied the automobile exception to driveways without considering wh......
  • State v. Witherspoon, Nos. 54102
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1970
    ...the decisions following Carroll. C.f. Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed.2d 629 (1931); Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151 (1938); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); and Cooper v. California, 3......
  • Rosales v. Bradshaw, CIV 20-0751 JB/JHR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • November 17, 2021
    ...private driveway or carport.”)(citing United States v. McLaughlin, 578 F.2d 1180, 1183-84 (5th Cir. 1978)); Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 255 (1938)(“[I]t seems plain enough that just before he entered the garage the following officers properly could have stopped petitioner's car, m......
  • 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