Steele v. United States
Decision Date | 13 April 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 235,235 |
Citation | 69 L.Ed. 757,45 S.Ct. 414,267 U.S. 498 |
Parties | STEELE v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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.
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.:
'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.
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 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 enforce or assist in enforcing any law thereof, stating the particular grounds or probable cause for its issue and the names of the persons whose affidavits have been taken in support thereof, and commanding him forthwith to search the person or place named, for the property specified, and to bring it before the judge or commissioner. If the grounds on which the warrant was issued be controverted, the judge or commissioner must proceed to take testimony in relation thereto, and the testimony of each witness must be reduced to writing and subscribed by each witness. If it appears that the property taken is not the same as that described in the warrant, or that there is no probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued, the judge or commissioner must cause the property to be restored to the person from whom it was taken; but if it appears that the property taken is the same as that described in the warrant, and that there is probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued, then the judge or commissioner shall order the same retained in the custody of the person seizing or to be otherwise disposed of according to law.
The facts developed before the commissioner on hearing this petition for return of the seized goods were these: Einstein and Moe Smith were prohibition agents. They saw a truck depositing cases in a garage on the opposite side of Forty-Sixth street from where they were. Einstein...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. MacAvoy
...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. Es......
-
People v. Estrada
...a 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. Lyons
...a sufficient description of the premises to be searched is given in a search warrant was stated in Steele v. United States , [267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S. Ct. 414, 69 L. Ed. 757 (1925) ], as follows: It is enough if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can, with reason......
-
People v. Dumas
...officer conducting the search 'can, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.' (Steele v. United States (1925) 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757.) Nothing should be left to the discretion of the officer. (Marron v. United States (1927) 275 U.S. 192, ......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Smith, 21 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. App. 1999) 29 Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) 77 TABLE OF CASES 369 Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498 (1925) 194 Stephen v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985) 110 Stewart v. County of Lubbock, 767 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1985) 172 Stewart, United......
-
When Rummaging Goes Digital: Fourth Amendment Particularity and Stored E-mail Surveillance
...officer with a search warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.'" (quoting Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925))). 116. Kerr, supra note 8, at 1045. 117. Id. at 1045-46. 118. Id. at 1046 (arguing that without knowledge of which e-mail account......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law
...that the officer executing the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended. Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 69 L. Ed. 757, 760, 45 S. Ct. 414, 416 (1925); State v. Smith, 39 Wash. App. 642, 648-49, 694 P.2d 660, 664 If a warrant is invalid for ......
-
Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1988 Update
...executing the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended. Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 69 L.Ed. 757, 760, 45 S. Ct. 414, 416 (1925); State v. Smith, 39 Wash. App. 642, 648, 694 P.2d 660, 664 (1984), review denied, 103 Wash. 2d 1034 (1985); ......