United States v. Keleher
| Decision Date | 01 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 4061.,4061. |
| Citation | 2 F.2d 934,55 App. DC 132 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. KELEHER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Peyton Gordon and L. A. Rover, both of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
T. M. Wampler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
On the first of May, 1923, a search warrant was issued which directed the major of police of the District of Columbia to arrest John B. Keleher and to search his apartment for certain devices, apparatus, and paraphernalia alleged to be kept for the purpose of unlawful gaming and "connected with the maintaining of a place for the making of bets, books, and pools on horse races." Under that search warrant G. W. Worrell, a member of the metropolitan police force, searched Keleher's apartment and seized certain articles specified in the writ, as well as other property not specifically enumerated therein.
On the 5th of May, 1923, Keleher filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in which he prayed for an order directing that the property taken under the warrant be returned to him, on the ground that the search was made without probable cause and in violation of his constitutional rights. Keleher also moved to quash the search warrant on the ground that it was void upon its face, and that there was no warrant or authority for the issuance or execution thereof. To the petition an answer was filed by Robert C. Jackson. Neither the answer nor the record discloses Jackson's relation to the case, or in what capacity he appeared. The answer is silent as to whether the warrant was issued on affidavit or on deposition, and there is absolutely nothing in the record showing that any one made any written or other sworn statement of facts within his own knowledge which would justify the issuance of the search warrant. The Supreme Court of the District ordered the return of the property, and the government appealed.
The right to make a search or seizure having been directly challenged by Keleher's petition and by his motion to quash the warrant, it was the duty of the proper officials to justify the action taken, and to establish that the search and seizure was legally authorized by a search warrant, the issuance of which it was lawful and within the jurisdiction of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McKenzie
...cites no authority for his position and therefore fails to overcome the presumption of constitutionality. United States v. Keleher, (1924), 55 App.D.C. 132, 2 F.2d 934, relied upon by defendant, is not applicable to the facts here. We note that Montana's statute section 95-1806(f), R.C.M.19......
-
State v. Arregui
... ... 10496 1/4c, 10496 1/4d, 10496 1/4e; C. S., secs. 2637, 9321, ... 9322; 9323; Schencks v. United States, 55 App. D. C ... 84, 2 F.2d 185; People v. Elias, 316 Ill. 376, 147 ... N.E. 472; ... nature of the affiant's information. ( United States ... v. Keleher (D. C. App.), 2 F.2d 934; People v ... Elias, [44 Idaho 46] 316 Ill. 376, 147 N.E. 472; ... ...
-
State v. McKenzie
...cites no authority for his position and therefore fails to overcome the presumption of constitutionality. United States v. Keleher (1924), 55 App.D.C. 132, 2 F.2d 934, relied upon by defendant, is not applicable to the facts here. We note that Montana's statute section 95-1806(f), R.C.M.194......
-
State v. McKenzie
...defendant cites no authority for his position and therefore fails to overcome the presumption of constitutionality. United States v. Keleher, 55 App.D.C. 132, 2 F.2d 934, relied upon by defendant, is not applicable to the facts here. We note that Montana's statute section 95-1806(f), R.C.M.......