United States v. Goodwin

• Decision Date: 04 August 1924
• Docket Number: No. 6383.,6383.
• Citation: 1 F.2d 36
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. GOODWIN et al.

1 F.2d 36 (1924)

UNITED STATES v. GOODWIN et al.

No. 6383.

District Court, S. D. California, S. D.

August 4, 1924.

Joseph C. Burke, U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal.

Wallace W. Davis, for defendant Goodwin.

JAMES, District Judge.

The motion here presented is to suppress certain evidence alleged to have been obtained from the dwelling house occupied by defendant Alfred Goodwin, on the ground that the search warrant, under the authority of which prohibition officers entered defendant's house, was illegally issued. The facts stated in the verified petition of the defendant were not opposed by any evidence offered by the government. In that petition defendant averred that the house was occupied by him exclusively as a home. The property taken under the warrant consisted of a still, a quantity of fermenting mash, 30 gallons of liquor, and several containers. The matter being presented in open court under the conditions specified, an order was made granting the motion. As the questions involved may be frequently raised hereafter, it is considered advisable that this opinion be filed, to make clear the extent of the court's ruling and the limitations attached to it.

The substantial question involved is: What are the conditions which must be made to appear under oath, which will authorize the issuance of a warrant entitling prohibition officers to make search of a building which is occupied for dwelling purposes? Section 25 of title 2 of the Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138½m) provides that:

"No search warrant shall issue to search any private dwelling occupied as such unless it is being used for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, or unless it is in part used for some business purpose such as a store, shop, saloon, restaurant, hotel, or boarding house."

Except as limited by the foregoing provision, the act recites that search warrants may be issued as provided in an act approved June 15, 1917, 40 Stats. at Large, p. 228 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 10212i, 10496¼a-10496¼v). Applying the latter law to offenses under the Prohibition Act, in general it authorizes search to be made of buildings where property therein is possessed or is being used for the purpose of committing any of the prohibited acts. Such a warrant may be issued upon probable cause, supported by an affidavit naming or particularly describing the property or place to be searched. Sections 4 and 5 of the law authorizing search warrants provide as follows:

"Sec. 4. The judge or commissioner must, before issuing the warrant, examine on oath the complainant and any witness he may produce, and require their affidavits or take their depositions in writing and cause them to be subscribed by the parties making them. Section 10496¼d.

"Sec. 5. The affidavits or depositions must set forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the application or probable cause for believing that they exist." Section 10496¼e.

In a proper case, then, it appears that, to give full authority for the issuance of a search warrant, the evidence need establish probable cause only. This evidence may consist of proof of circumstances and conditions which, considered all together, may warrant the inference of probable cause. The affidavit upon which the warrant was issued in this case recited that the affiant, after receiving numerous complaints that liquor was being manufactured and sold on the premises, "made investigation and detected the strong odor of fermenting mash and saw several machines leave the premises." The tangible evidence which that...