Stacey v. Emery
| Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 1035,97 U.S. 642 |
| Parties | STACEY v. EMERY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Robert McPhail Smith for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith, contra.
Emery, a supervisor of internal revenue, was sued by Stacey for causing the seizure of a quantity of whiskey belonging to him, which had been libelled by the collector of internal revenue, under Emery's direction, and subsequently released, on dismissing the proceedings against it.
That judgment and the accompanying order are in the words following:
Emery justified as supervisor, and upon demurrer to his pleas setting up the certificate of probable cause as above set forth, judgment was given in his favor.
Stacey then sued out this writ of error, which is based on the ground that the certificate is no protection to Emery.
It is contended that the certificate protects the collector, on the sole ground that he acted as a ministerial officer, in obedience to the orders of his superior, and that the granting of the certificate in this form implies that the seizure was made without probable cause. These facts, it is said, determine conclusively that the seizure was wrongfully made, and that the defendant was a trespasser in making it. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362.
The defendant must and does base his exemption from liability for an unauthorized seizure of the plaintiff's goods upon the act of March 2, 1799 (1 Stat. 696, sect. 89), which provides as follows: 'When any prosecution shall be commenced on account of the seizure of any ship or vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise, and judgment shall be given for the claimant or claimants, if it shall appear to the court before whom such prosecution shall be tried that there was a reasonable cause of seizure, the said court shall cause a proper certificate or entry to be made thereof; and in such case the claimant or claimants shall not be entitled to costs, nor shall the person who made the seizure, or the prosecutor, be liable to action, suit, or judgment on account of such seizure or prosecution.'
Under this act, if it appeared to the court that there was a reasonable cause of seizure, it was its duty to cause a proper certificate to be made thereof. This was its sole duty in this respect, and its decision is conclusive. The reason entitling the defendant to exemption, or the motive for granting the certificate, makes no part of the record, and should not be recited therein. If the prosecutor had called together a jury of twelve good men prior to the seizure, and had taken their judgment whether the goods were liable to seizure, and had acted upon it, this circumstance should have found no place in the record. Its recital would have been surplusage simply.
So when the court states as a reason for granting a certificate of probable cause of seizure by the collector, that the seizure was made by the direction of his superior officer, this statement is irrelevant and superfluous. The certificate of probable cause is all there is of it. The residue of the sentence is out of the case. The unusual form of the certificate should work on prejudice to the rights of the defendant.
The act we have cited provides that, when such certificate shall be made, neither the party making the seizure nor the prosecutor shall be liable to action on account of such seizure or prosecution. The collector who made the seizure has been certified not to be liable, and the present defendant, the party directing the seizure,—that is, the prosecutor,—is equally entitled to exemption.
Generally, it is the duty of the district attorney of the United States to prosecute for all violations of the customs revenue laws, or the internal revenue laws of the country. Rev. Stat., sect. 838. No doubt he falls within the protection of this statute of 1799, as does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terry v. State of Ohio
...13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174—176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645, 24 L.Ed. 1035 (1878).23 And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his ......
-
State v. McKenzie
...before him that a crime has probably been committed and that the defendant probably committed the crime. In Stacey v. Emery, (1878), 97 U.S. 642, 7 Otto 642, 24 L.Ed. 1035, the United States Supreme Court cited with approval several definitions adopted by the various states: " * * * 'A reas......
-
Foster v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
...to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the party is guilty of the offense with which he is charged." [18 R.C.L. 35, citing Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642. See also Stubbs v. Mulholland, supra, p. 74; Irons v. Express Co. (Mo.), 300 S.W. 283; Carp v. Ins. Co., 203 Mo. 295, 101 S.W. 78; H......
-
U.S. v. Henry
...that an offense has been committed." Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 171, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 24 L.Ed. 1035. In the instant case, Ms. Hankins, the first immigration official to interview the Appellant, testified that the Appellant pres......
-
Probable Cause in Child Pornography Cases: Does It Mean the Same Thing?
...at 147. 44 Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003). 45 Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 441 (1925) (quoting Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1891)). 46 11 U.S. 339, 348 (1813), quoted in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949) and United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.......
-
How the Fourth Amendment Frustrates the Regulation of Police Violence
...for violent crimes, and was actively resisting arrest.").230. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 (1925).231. Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1878).232. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 3 (1985) (emphasis added). The Court also did not define "serious physical injury," although i......
-
POLICING SUSPICION: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND "CLEARLY ESTABLISHED" STANDARDS OF PROOF.
...v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 351 (2009). (40) Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1051 (1983). (41) Gant, 556 U.S. at 351. (42) Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 643 (43) Id at 645. (44) Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 (1925). (45) Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 3......