United States v. Eversole, 10868.

Citation209 F.2d 766
Decision Date17 February 1954
Docket NumberNo. 10868.,10868.
PartiesUNITED STATES v. EVERSOLE.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Cecil C. Tague, Sr., Brookville, Ind., Jacob H. Martin, Sydney G. Craig, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Jack C. Brown, U. S. Atty., Stephen Leonard and William H. Sparrenberger, Asst. U. S. Attys., Indianapolis, Ind., for appellee.

Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges.

DUFFY, Circuit Judge.

Defendant was convicted of violating 26 U.S.C.A. § 2803(a) by having in his possession a gallon of distilled spirits in a container which did not have a stamp attached showing payment of Internal Revenue taxes.

On the basis of an alleged unreasonable search and seizure, an oral motion was made at the beginning of the trial, and renewed during the trial, to suppress Exhibit I, being the jug of distilled spirits. Each motion to suppress was denied and after a trial to the court the defendant was found guilty as charged. On this appeal the sole error urged is that the jug of distilled liquor was obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure. Defendant claims that the search was indiscriminate, conducted without probable cause, and in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Chappel Road is a country highway about three miles in length, located in Franklin County, Indiana, one end of which intersects State Highway 52, which is a heavily traveled highway. On September 2, 1951, Indiana State and County police authorities and one federal officer placed road blocks near both ends of Chappel Road. The record does not disclose who was in charge of the officers, but the idea of the road block was apparently that of Sheriff Hixon of Franklin County. It is clear that the State and federal authorities were cooperating.

Considering the evidence most favorable to the government, Sheriff Hixon had received a number of complaints of drunkenness and fighting in the Chappel Road area, and had received reports that on previous Sundays, moonshine whiskey had been taken from the area in vehicles of various kinds. It had been reported to the Sheriff that Anderson Eversole had been seen several times in the Chappel Road area. The Sheriff knew Eversole, and that some 20 years previously he had been convicted of bootlegging. On the afternoon of Sunday, September 2, 1951, the officers who were located near the end of Chappel Road, about ¾ of a mile distant from Highway 52, stopped an Oldsmobile car, searched it, and found moonshine whiskey.

On said date defendant had been visiting at the Richmond home located on Chappel Road. Because of a disabled leg, he had requested a ride home from one Hunter, who owned a Ford pick-up truck. Hunter asked a young man, Oliver Quinlan, to drive defendant home, and Quinlan, Dewey Richmond, and defendant started to drive down Chappel Road in the truck. They had traveled only a quarter of a mile when they came to where the Oldsmobile was standing in the road. Quinlan stopped the truck, and almost immediately thereafter saw one of the officers on the road. Quinlan and Richmond got out of the truck and as they did so one of the officers saw a glass jug on the floor board of the truck, next to defendant's feet. The jug was taken from the truck, the federal officer examined it, smelled it, and identified it as moonshine whiskey. All three occupants of the truck were placed under arrest.

Defendant contends that at least eight automobiles and trucks were stopped by the officers in an indiscriminate search that was nothing more than a fishing expedition. In support of his claim that such search was unreasonable and illegal, he relies upon statements of the Supreme Court in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, and Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879.

In the Carroll case the court said, 267 U.S. at pages 153-154, 45 S.Ct. at page 285, "It would be intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to stop every automobile on the chance of finding liquor, and thus subject all persons lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a search. * * * those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • De Masters v. Arend
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 26 Febrero 1963
    ...See 43 Va.L. Rev. 114 (1957). See also Baskerville v. United States, 227 F.2d 454, 456 (10th Cir., 1955); United States v. Eversole, 209 F.2d 766, 768 (7th Cir., 1954). See also United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944), and cases cited; Tileston v. Ullm......
  • People v. DeFilippis, 39191
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 25 Enero 1966
    ...he could not complain of its seizure or use in evidence against him. People v. Perroni, 14 Ill.2d 581, 153 N.E.2d 578; United States v. Eversole (7th cir.), 209 F.2d 766. Despite the beneficent purpose and laudable aim of the exclusionary rule, an accused who objected to the introduction of......
  • Jones v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 28 Marzo 1960
    ...a defendant within this dilemma. See, e.g., Scoggins v. United States, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 29, 30, 202 F.2d 211, 212; United States v. Eversole, 7 Cir., 209 F.2d 766, 768; Accardo v. United States, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 162, 163—164, 247 F.2d 568, 569—570; Grainger v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d......
  • Butler v. State, 2--672A16
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 5 Diciembre 1972
    ...him. Kirkland v. State, (1968) 249 Ind. 305, 232 N.E.2d 365; Greer v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 609, 255 N.E.2d 919; United States v. Eversole, (7th Cir. 1954) 209 F.2d 766. Objection to an illegal search and seizure of a third party's property which the defendant does not own, or have the rig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT