United States v. Fenton
| Decision Date | 25 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 3634. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. FENTON et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
W. W Patterson, U.S. Atty., of Helena, Mont.
Jos. P Donnelly, of Havre, Mont., for defendants.
Defendants were convicted of unlawfully transporting in an auto, some 130 quarts of whisky, the auto and whisky were adjudged forfeited to the United States, and defendants move for a new trial upon the ground that their arrest and the seizure of the whisky and car were without process, in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and unlawful; that the evidence at the trial was the whisky and the testimony of the delinquent officers; and that defendants preserved their rights by motion before trial (heard at trial and decision reserved) for return of the whisky and auto.
From the evidence it appears the arrest and seizure were about 75 miles south of the boundary line; that the officers had heard that several unnamed persons and autos were that night coming with whisky smuggled from Canada; that to capture them they located themselves 20 yards apart along the road; that about 3:30 a.m. defendants' auto slowly approached from the north; that the officer nearest turned a flash light upon them and ordered them to halt, which they refused to do; that so likewise ordered the second and third officer, as defendants reached and passed them; that when the auto was a length or so past the first officer he fired to puncture the tires; that when it was about 10 feet past the third officer he overtook it, mounted the running board, and was ordered off by defendants with gun display; that the officers, with display of weapons, forced defendants to stop, arrested them searched, found the whisky, some of which was visible before search, in part of Canadian brand, and seized auto and whisky.
Defendants were taken in commission of a misdemeanor, if not of a felony. Whether or not, in the circumstances of time, place common knowledge of whisky running, information of the officers, and the incidents of the arrest, the misdemeanor was committed 'in the presence' of the officers (see In re Morrill (C.C.) 35 F. 267, and 5 Corp. Jur. 416), whether or not defendants were subject to arrest without process as at common law, as night walkers or prowlers reasonably subject to suspicion, whether or not the officers had reasonable grounds to believe defendants had committed a felony,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. State
...CALIFORNIA. (1923). U. S. v. Vatune, 292 F. 497. S. D. CALIFORNIA. (1922). U. S. v. Bateman, 278 F. 231. MONTANA DISTRICT. (1920). U. S. v. Fenton, 268 F. 221. S. ALABAMA. (1922). U. S. v. McBride, 287 F. 214. E. D. MICHIGAN. (1923). U. S. v. Daison, 288 F. 199. S. D. OHIO. 1922). U. S. v. ......
-
State v. District Court of Eighth Jud. Dist.
... ... 308; U. S. v. Cararota, 278 ... F. 388; City v. Walser, 187 N.W. 821; U. S. v ... Fenton, 268 F. 221; Blakemore on Prohibition, (2nd Ed ... 1925) 501; jurisdiction is never waived; 15 ... Session Laws of 1921, covering the same subject. McFadden on ... Prohibition, sec. 117, states that "when the seizure is ... unlawful and unconstitutional, the liquor seized must be ... Jurisdiction," and 47 American Law Review 516, "A ... Definition of Jurisdiction." In United States v ... Arredondo, 6 Peters 691, the Supreme Court of the United ... States defined the ... ...
-
O'Connor v. United States
...which they were found, as before narrated, were forfeited to the government (United States v. Rykowski (D.C.) 267 F. 866; United States v. Fenton (D.C.) 268 F. 221; United States v. O'Dowd, 273 F. 600, Elrod v. Moss (C.C.A. 4) 278 F. 123)-- were liable to seizure, and on the order of the co......
-
Dade v. State
... ... for the supremacy of the law; ***." See also the ... extensive quotation from United States v. Rembert, D ... C., 284 F. 996, in Smith v. State, 34 Okl.Cr ... 434, 246 P. 1109 ... of the cases cited are directly in point, except United ... States v. Fenton, D.C., 268 F. 221, and the view therein ... expressed has not been generally adopted. In addition ... ...
-
The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away: the century of Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" doctrine.
...to searches or seizures conducted in an open field. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924). (151) See, e.g., United States v. Fenton, 268 F. 221, 222-23 (D. Mont. 1920) (ruling that the United States was "vested with the right of property and possession" in illegal liquor, and thus was......