Steele v. United States, No. 235
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | TAFT |
| Citation | 69 L.Ed. 757,45 S.Ct. 414,267 U.S. 498 |
| Parties | STEELE v. UNITED STATES |
| Docket Number | No. 235 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1925 |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Page 499
Mr. Meyer Kraushaar, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mr. Mahlon D. Kiefer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal, under section 238 of the Judicial Code,1 direct from the District Court, being a case involving the application of the federal Constitution. The judgment complained of denied a petition of Steele for an order vacating a search warrant, by authority of which Steele's premises were searched and a large amount of whisky and other intoxicating liquor was found and seized. He contends that the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, because not issued upon probable cause, and not particularly describing the place to be searched or the property to be seized, and because the search conducted under the warrant was unreasonable. The affidavit for search warrant was as follows:
'Southern District of New York—ss.:
'Isidor Einstein, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a general prohibition agent assigned to duty in
Page 500
the state of New York. On December 6, 1922, at about 10 o'clock a. m., accompanied by Agent Moe W. Smith, I was standing in front of the garage located in the building at 611 West Forty-Sixth street, Borough of Manhattan, city and Southern district of New York. This building is used for business purposes only. I saw a small truck driven into the entrance of the garage, and I saw the driver unload from the end of the truck a number of cases of stenciled whisky. They were the size and appearance of whisky cases and I believe that they contained whisky. A search of the records of the federal prohibition director's office fails to disclose any permit for the manufacture, sale, or possession of intoxicating liquors at the premises above referred to.
'The said premises are within the Southern district of New York, and upon information and belief have thereon a quantity of intoxicating liquor containing more than one-half of 1 per cent. of alcohol by volume, and fit for use for beverage purposes, which is used, has been used, and is intended for use, in violation of the statute of the United States, to wit, the National Prohibition Act.
'This affidavit is made to procure a search warrant, to search said building at the above address, any building or rooms connected or used in connection with said garage, the basement or subcellar beneath the same, and to seize all intoxicating liquors found therein.
'Isidor Einstein.
'Sworn to before me this 6th day of December, 1922. Saml. M. Hitchcock, U. S. Commissioner, Southern District of New York.'
The search warrant issued by the commissioner followed the affidavit in the description of the place and property to be searched and seized and was directed to Einstein as general prohibition agent.
Section 25, title 2, of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305, 315, c. 85 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138 1/2 m]) provides for the issue of a search
Page 501
warrant to seize liquor and its containers intended for use in violating the act, and provides that the search warrant shall be issued as provided in title 2 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 217, 228, c. 30 [Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 10496 1/4 a-10496 1/4 v]).
Under that title, in conformity with the Fourth Amendment the warrant can be issued only upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the property and place to be searched. The judge or commissioner must before issuing the warrant examine on oath the complainant and any witness he may produce, and require their affidavits or take their depositions in writing and cause them to be subscribed by the parties making them. The affidavits or depositions must set forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the application or probable cause for believing that they exist. If the judge or commissioner is satisfied of the existence of the grounds for the application, or that there is probable cause to believe their existence, he must issue a search warrant, signed by him with his name of office, to a civil officer of the United States duly authorized to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reid, M1999-00803-CCA-R3-DD
...that the searching officer can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the intended place. See Steele v. United States, 267 U .S. 498, 502, 45 S. Ct. 414 (1925); see also United States v. Gahagan, 865 F.2d 1490, 1496 (6th Cir. 1989). Likewise, Tennessee law prohibits general warrant......
-
People v. MacAvoy
...the place intended.' " (People v. Dumas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 871, 880, 109 Cal.Rptr. 304, 512 P.2d 1208, quoting Steele v. United States (1925) 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757; see also People v. Superior Court (Fish) (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 218, 222, 161 Cal.Rptr. 547; People v......
-
People v. Estrada, Cr. 4504
...172 search warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended. [Citations.]' (Steele v. United States (1925) 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757; United States v. Joseph (D.C.E.D.Pa.1959) 174 F.Supp. 539, 544, aff'd 278 F.2d 504 (3d Cir.1960), cert......
-
State v. Perrone, No. 57937-7
...the things which are authorized to be seized." United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir.1981) (citing Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503-04, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925)); see State v. Trasvina, 16 Wash.App. 519, 522, 557 P.2d 368 (1976), review denied, 88 Wash.2d......
-
State v. Reid, M1999-00803-CCA-R3-DD
...that the searching officer can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the intended place. See Steele v. United States, 267 U .S. 498, 502, 45 S. Ct. 414 (1925); see also United States v. Gahagan, 865 F.2d 1490, 1496 (6th Cir. 1989). Likewise, Tennessee law prohibits general warrant......
-
People v. MacAvoy
...the place intended.' " (People v. Dumas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 871, 880, 109 Cal.Rptr. 304, 512 P.2d 1208, quoting Steele v. United States (1925) 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757; see also People v. Superior Court (Fish) (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 218, 222, 161 Cal.Rptr. 547; People v......
-
People v. Estrada, Cr. 4504
...172 search warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended. [Citations.]' (Steele v. United States (1925) 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757; United States v. Joseph (D.C.E.D.Pa.1959) 174 F.Supp. 539, 544, aff'd 278 F.2d 504 (3d Cir.1960), cert......
-
State v. Perrone, No. 57937-7
...the things which are authorized to be seized." United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir.1981) (citing Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503-04, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925)); see State v. Trasvina, 16 Wash.App. 519, 522, 557 P.2d 368 (1976), review denied, 88 Wash.2d......
-
Messerschmidt v. Millender
...al. v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 751 (2009).Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001).Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1985).Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498 (1925).Stone, M. P., & Berger, M. J. (2009). The scope of federal qualified immunity in civil rights cases. Americansfor Effective Law Enfor......