Seymour v. United States, 10130.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 10130.,10130. |
| Citation | 85 US App. DC 366,177 F.2d 732 |
| Parties | SEYMOUR v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. M. Edward Buckley, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and A. J. McLaughlin, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Mr. Lo Clark Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
Appellant has been convicted of keeping a bawdy house. Her chief contention is that the warrant on which she was arrested was obtained without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so that the arrest was unlawful and the evidence it uncovered should have been excluded. We think there was plenty of probable cause, partly in what the officers who swore out the warrant had observed and partly in what other persons had told them. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310; Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed. 629, 74 A.L.R. 1407; Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151. It follows that language in Grau v. United States, 287 U.S. 124, 128, 53 S.Ct. 38, 77 L.Ed. 212, which seems to imply that probable cause may not consist partly of hearsay, cannot have been so intended.
The warrant, issued April 6, 1948, commanded the officers to arrest appellant "forthwith." They tried to serve it promptly but were told that appellant was out of town. They succeeded in serving it April 12. In the absence of any showing of prejudice to appellant, we think there was sufficient compliance with the warrant. "Forthwith" is here equivalent to "* * * within a reasonable time; promptly and with reasonable dispatch." Webster's New International Dictionary (1946). Since the meaning of words varies with their context, cases dealing with the duty of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Di Bella v. United States
...there has been opportunity in the meantime to make the arrest. See United States v. Joines, supra (21 days); Seymour v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S. App.D.C. 366, 177 F.2d 732 (6 days); State v. Kopelow, 1927, 126 Me. 384, 138 A. 625 (7 days); State v. Nadeau, 1903, 97 Me. 275, 54 A. 725 (2......
-
Carlo v. United States
...executed with reasonable promptness or it may become stale. United States v. Joines, 3 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 471, Seymour v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 366, 177 F.2d 732. An exception by necessity carved out of the Constitutional requirement should not be allowed greater breadth. However......
-
State v. Carangelo
...cause at the time the warrant was executed or legal prejudice to the suspect caused by the delay. 6 See Seymour v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 366, 177 F.2d 732 (D.C.Cir. 1949); Spinelli v. United States, 382 F.2d 871 (8 Cir. 1967), rev'd on other grounds 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L......
-
Com. v. Cromer
...to the search will be suppressed only if the defendant can show that he was prejudiced by the delay. See, e.g., Seymour v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 366, 177 F.2d 732 (1949); Spinelli v. United States, 382 F.2d 871 (8th Cir. 1967), revd. on other grounds, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21......