United States v. 1013 Crates of Whiskey Bottles

• Decision Date: 14 July 1931
• Docket Number: No. 361.,361.
• Citation: 52 F.2d 49
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. 1013 CRATES OF EMPTY OLD SMUGGLER WHISKEY BOTTLES AND OTHER PROPERTY. Claim of GLICKSTEIN & TERNER, Inc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

52 F.2d 49 (1931)

UNITED STATES v. 1013 CRATES OF EMPTY OLD SMUGGLER WHISKEY BOTTLES AND OTHER PROPERTY Claim of GLICKSTEIN & TERNER, Inc.

No. 361.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided July 14, 1931.

Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., and J. Bertram Wegman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Brooklyn, N. Y.

Harold L. Turk, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

Cases like this involve grave danger. The very natural desire of government officers who try to enforce the law to the best of their ability leads them to adopt the most practical and efficient way to do it whenever by some plausible reasoning they can satisfy themselves that no constitutional rights are contravened. But their zeal for the cause in which they have enlisted so often creates in their minds such an emphasis upon the theory that the virtue in the end will justify the means that the fundamental rights of a liberty loving people will be gradually sapped, undermined, and finally destroyed by a subtle, insidious, and persistent narrowing of vital bedrock principles unless courts are steadfast and firm in the preservation of what has been gained through centuries of struggle. The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, is one of the pillars of liberty so necessary to a free government that expediency in law enforcement must ever yield to the necessity for keeping the principles on which it rests inviolate. In this spirit alone it is safe to attempt to solve the problem which now confronts us.

The property covered by this libel is contraband. Danovitz v. United States, 281 U. S. 389, 50 S. Ct. 344, 74 L. Ed. 923. It was in the possession of the government when the libel was filed. But we do not consider whether, even though the seizure was illegal, the government might have adopted it and proceeded to forfeit the property, because, by the stipulation of the parties, the sole question submitted for determination was the legality of the search and seizure, and, in the event that that issue was determined in favor of the claimant, the decree was to be for it.

As unreasonable searches and seizures are the only kind which violate the Constitution, we are to examine the validity of the one which is relied upon to give jurisdiction here in the light of its reasonableness. As it was made without a search warrant, the government must needs support it by showing circumstances which made it reasonable without one. Obviously, in dealing with contraband housed in buildings not capable of escape from the officers and the jurisdiction by their mobility, as are automobiles, cases like Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790, holding searches without a warrant but upon probable cause to believe contraband is present in vehicles, are not conclusive. These officers had a reasonable opportunity to obtain a search warrant. No reason for their failure to do that can be perceived except the wholly inadequate one that it was, perhaps, less troublesome to them to proceed without it.

We are urged to hold that they had the right to search and seize as they did without a warrant because they made arrests in the premises. No other justification for such conduct is advanced. It was assumed upon the argument that the arrests were lawful, and we shall take that for granted. This calls up for consideration the effect of the undoubted right of an officer...