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,...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day 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......