United States v. Jankowski
Decision Date | 29 October 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 91.,91. |
Citation | 28 F.2d 800 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. JANKOWSKI et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Michael J. Maher, of Buffalo, N. Y. (John J. Carlo, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
Richard H. Templeton, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y. (Harold E. Orr, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
This version of what occurred shows no illegal search, nor, indeed, any search at all. While engaged in ordinary police work for the state, the troopers saw the package which the defendants said contained whisky. Thereafter the defendants, knowing that they were caught, confessed that they had other whisky aboard the car, and opened the rear of the car and disclosed the contents.
The claim that the search was illegal can only be based on the opening of the door of the car by the trooper. But when a policeman, without any protest, opens the door of an automobile to talk to the owner, it certainly goes beyond all reason to say that he is engaged in an unlawful search. It may often be the most convenient way either to look at a registry card or to talk to the driver about the condition of his headlights.
Nor is it necessary, because the lights were not ultimately found to be defective, to assume that the motive for stopping the car was to make an unlawful search for contraband liquor. They may have temporarily been dim because of some irregularity in the electric current, or the officers may have been mistaken. The avowed purpose for stopping the car and opening the door was to enforce state regulations, and the discovery of the whisky was incidental.
In such circumstances, any officer who saw the defendants in the act of committing a crime would have the power to make an arrest.
The plaintiff in error relies on the decision in Gambino v. United States, 275 U. S. 310, 48 S. Ct. 137, 72 L. Ed. 293, 52 A. L. R. 1381. It was there held that, when state officers were making a search and seizure without probable cause and solely for the purpose of aiding in the enforcement of the federal law, the evidence could not be used in the federal courts, because the sole purpose of the search was to aid in the prosecution of a federal offense. Here, according to the testimony of Gibbons, the purpose of stopping the car was to enforce the observance of the state laws, and the information gained thereby was incidental and obtained without any search.
The only remaining consideration is whether the story of Gibbons, on the faith of which the trial judge admitted the evidence, was credible, and whether, even if it was prima facie credible, the jury, in view of the conflict of testimony, should not have been allowed to pass on whether the facts constituted an illegal search.
It cannot be doubted that the testimony of Gibbons was credible. It was only met by the story of one of the defendants under indictment for the offense charged. Gibbons is not shown to have had any interest in misrepresenting the facts, whereas the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Elkins v. United States
...156 F.2d 897; with Kitt v. United States, 4 Cir., 132 F.2d 920; Sloane v. United States, 10 Cir., 47 F.2d 889. 5 Compare United States v. Jankowski, 2 Cir., 28 F.2d 800; Marsh v. United States, 2 Cir., 29 F.2d 172; with United States v. Butler, 10 Cir., 156 F.2d 6 See, e.g., Burford v. Unit......
-
State v. Braxton
...517, 202 A.2d 856 (App.Div.1964); Campbell v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 289 F.Supp. 775 (D.C.Cir.1961); United States v. Jankowski, 28 F.2d 800, 802 (2 Cir. 1928); see also State v. Smith, 37 N.J. 481, 496, 181 A.2d 761 (1962); State v. Murphy, 85 N.J.Super. 391, 399, 204 A.2d 88......
-
People v. Estrialgo
...302 F.2d 214, 245; Busby v. United States, 9 Cir., 296 F.2d 328; Weathersbee v. United States, 5 Cir., 62 F.2d 822; United States v. Jankowski, 2 Cir., 28 F.2d 800. The federal cases have never with absolute precision decided that probable cause to arrest may be obtained as a result of 'det......
-
People v. Simon
...16-17, 98 P. 43; People v. Exum, 382 Ill. 204, 47 N.E.2d 56, 60; People v. Henneman, 367 Ill. 151, 10 N.E.2d 649, 650; United States v. Jankowski, 2 Cir., 28 F.2d 800, 802; see also Morgan v. United States, 10 Cir., 159 F.2d 85, 86-87; Kaiser v. United States, 8 Cir., 60 F.2d 410, 412-413; ......