United States v. Allen
| Decision Date | 02 December 1926 |
| Citation | 16 F.2d 320 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ALLEN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Wm. M. Gober, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Tampa, Fla.
W. K. Zewadski, Jr., of Tampa, Fla., for defendant.
An information was filed in this court by the United States district attorney charging one Tom Allen and another with the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Law. The cause came on for trial against Tom Allen before a jury, duly impaneled in open court. The testimony showed that prohibition officers, during the night of August 14, 1926, without a search warrant, stopped an automobile on a public highway in Hillsborough county, Fla., searched it, and found therein the defendant Allen and certain intoxicating liquors. Allen was placed under arrest by the prohibition officers and the liquors seized.
The government at the trial, upon the testimony of one of the prohibition agents who made the search and seizure, offered in evidence against this defendant the liquor so seized, to the introduction of which the attorney for the defendant objected, on the ground that the search and seizure was unlawful and in violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant.
The testimony of the prohibition agent, relied upon by the prosecution, was to the effect that he had "information that some automobiles were going to haul whisky over this road that night." The witness, in reply to the question, "What kind of automobile were you looking for?" answered, "One was a master six Studebaker sedan, and Ford coupé, and Dodge truck, and Ford coupé, and Studebaker roadster."
In addition to the above, the witness testified that he and another prohibition agent watched this road on the night in question, at a point at or near the bridge across the Alafia river; that his information showed that the Studebaker automobile had blue headlights, with driving lights in the center, and the rear glass to the right-hand door was broken, and mended with tape. He testified that about midnight a Studebaker automobile, with blue bulbs in the headlights, and driving lights in the center, crossed the bridge, and it was followed by a Ford coupeé that the car was going about 20 miles an hour; that he did not see who was in the car and he did not see the contents of the car; that he and his assistant proceeded to follow the cars; and in answer to a question whether or not he saw anything, when following these cars, that would indicate that the Studebaker car was used for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors, said: "Well, it appeared to be loaded and it was rather dirty; it appeared to be on a long drive — had mud on the back part of the spare tire cover and fenders."
The witness and his assistant then drove the car in which they were riding past the Studebaker car, and, driving their car in front of said Studebaker car, forced the driver thereof to stop. They immediately went up to the Studebaker car, found the defendant Allen therein, and found also the intoxicating liquors offered in evidence. The witness for the government, on cross-examination and in response to questions by the court, stated that he did not know the defendant Allen was in the car until after he had forced it to stop, and that he did not know that it contained intoxicating liquors until after that time.
The government, in urging the admission in evidence of the liquors in question, relied entirely upon the holding of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Carroll et al. v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790. The rule of law controlling the question of search and seizure of automobiles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Bremerton v. Smith, 30474.
... ... that they took, pilfered and appropriated to their own use ... money of the United States of America taken from the slot ... machines belonging to the Moose Lodge ... 206, 53 S.Ct. 138, ... 77 L.Ed. 260, 85 A.L.R. 108; United States v. Allen, ... D.C. 16 F.2d 320; and, Poldo v. United States, 9 ... Cir., 55 F.2d 866 ... ...
-
People v. Alaniz
...give the name of his informant. Counsel have cited no cases upon the exact point, although there is language in the case of United States v. Allen (D.C.) 16 F.2d 320, and Emite v. United States, 5 Cir., 15 F.2d 623, which would indicate that such an element might enter into the consideratio......
-
Hinds v. State
...all such matters. Even anonymous information, although not alone sufficient to constitute probable cause for a search, United States v. Allen (1926), 16 F.2d 320, may be sufficient to set in motion an inquiry by the officers, Faut v. State (1930), ante 322, 168 N.E. 124, and when, in additi......
-
Faut v. State
... ... search and seizure are valid. Carroll v. United" ... States (1925), 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, ... 39 A. L. R. 790 ... \xC2" ... the rear of the car was dusty, in United States v ... Allen (1926), 16 F.2d 320, was held (and we believe ... correctly held) insufficient to establish ... ...