Taylor v. United States

• Decision Date: 02 May 1932
• Docket Number: No. 693,693
• Citation: 286 U.S. 1,76 L.Ed. 951,52 S.Ct. 466
• Parties: TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

286 U.S. 1

52 S.Ct. 466

76 L.Ed. 951

TAYLOR

v UNITED STATES.

No. 693.

Argued April 11, 12, 1932.

Decided May 2, 1932.

Mr. R. Palmer Ingram, of Baltimore, Md., for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 1-3 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General and Mr. Thomas D.Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

An indictment, United States District Court for Maryland, charged petitioner Taylor with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor-whisky, 122 cases.

By timely petition to the court he asserted that in the nighttime prohibition agents acting without warrant had entered and searched the garage adjacent to his residence and had found and seized the liquor; that with this as evidence the indictment had been obtained; he anticipated that like use would be made of it at the trial. The prayer for its exclusion was denied.

By stipulation the cause went for trial by the court without a jury. The District Attorney called three of the agents who participated in the search. The defendant moved to exclude all their testimony on the ground that the search and seizure, made without warrant and in violation of his constitutional rights, were unreasonable; also that his private dwelling had been entered contrary to the inhibition of the Willis-Campbell Act (section 6 (18 USCA § 53)). The trial court overruled this motion, adjudged defendant guilty, and imposed fine and imprisonment. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, 55 F.(2d) 58. The cause comes up by certiorari, 285 U. S. 534, 52 S. Ct. 410, 76 L. Ed. —.

There is a suggestion, first made here, that the bill of exceptions printed in the record was signed by the judge out of time and therefore cannot be considered.

The trial took place during February, 1931. By proper orders permission to file the bill of exceptions was extended to May 17, 1931-Sunday. It was actually signed on May 18th. Immediately following the signature of the judge the following appears-'5/18/31. This Bill of Exceptions is agreed upon. Simon E. Sobeloff, U. S. Attorney. James M. Hoffa, Assistant U. S. Attorney.'

The facts surrounding the preparation and signing have been presented by affidavit and are not in dispute. Having prepared the bill, petitioner's counsel duly lodged it with the United States attorney. For convenience of the latter's office there were extensions of time to May 17th. On May 16th, the Assistant District Attorney having just completed examination of the bill, went with petitioner's counsel to the judge's chambers to secure his signature. Failing to find him, they agreed to ask his signature on Monday, May 18th. On that day, with the express approval of all parties, and in pursuance of the earlier agreement, the judge signed the bill. The considerable delay in settling the bill followed the request of the Assistant District Attorney in charge and was permitted for his convenience.

In these exceptional circumstances-the facts being undisputed-we think the petitioner is entitled to the bene- fit of the bill. And negativing and intent to relax the general rule, we accept it as adequate and properly incorporated in the record. See Waldron v. Waldron, 156 U. S. 361, 378, 15 S. Ct. 383, 39 L. Ed. 453.

Without undertaking to defend the challenged search and seizure, the Solicitor General submits the cause for our decision. As the conviction was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, he prefers not to enter a confession of error. He does, however, say that in his opinion, without regard to whether the garage constituted part of the private dwelling, upon the facts shown, the entry by the agents was wrongful and the search and...