United States v. Rogato, 5743.
Decision Date | 07 March 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 5743.,5743. |
Citation | 39 F.2d 171 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. ROGATO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Andrew B. Dunsmore, of Wellsboro, Pa., for the United States.
Walter W. Kohler, of Scranton, Pa., for defendant.
This is a rule to show cause why evidence obtained by federal prohibition agents in the search of property at 271 River street, Plains, Pa., should not be suppressed. The search was made by Federal Prohibition Agents Loos and Flood on the 18th day of July, 1929, at about 2 o'clock p. m. The facts leading up to the search and seizure were as follows:
Flood had been informed that the open space in the rear of 271 River street, Plains, Pa., was an "unloading place" for liquor. About a month previous to July 18th, he saw Louis Hornfeld there and a truck in which there were baskets of empty quart bottles. He told Hornfeld and others there at the time that if they did not stop unloading and transferring liquor and whisky at that place, he was going to get them, and about twice a week thereafter he visited and looked the place over.
On July 18th, Loos and Flood, when passing 271 River street, Plains, saw from River street the front ends of two automobile trucks in the rear of the building. The open space in the rear of the building was reached from River street by a driveway on each side of the building located on the premises. One of the trucks was facing south and the other was facing north, which indicated to the officers that they were backed up end to end in the usual position for transferring articles from one truck to the other. Loos and Flood went to the rear of the building where the trucks were, and they saw on the trucks pasteboard containers or cartons which they recognized from their experiences as prohibition agents as containers commonly used to cover cans of alcohol when being transported.
William Rogato, the defendant, was handing one of the containers from the truck in which he was to Hornfeld, who was in the other truck. Both Rogato and Hornfeld said that they did not know what the pasteboard covered cans contained. Loos opened one of the cans, and found from the taste and smell that it contained alcohol fit for beverage purposes in excess of one-half of one per cent. alcohol. On one of the trucks there were one hundred and three five-gallon cans of alcohol, and on the other truck there were eighty five-gallon cans of alcohol. Rogato and Hornfeld were placed under arrest and the truck of alcohol seized.
The attorney for the defendant contends that the search of the truck was made without probable cause for such search.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution does not denounce all search and seizures but only such as are unreasonable.
The Fourth Amendment is in part as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized."
Section 26, title 2, National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 40), under which the seizure herein was made, provides in part as follows:
In Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790, Chief Justice Taft in the opinion of the court said:
Page 147 of 267 U. S., 45 S. Ct. 280, 283, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790: * * *"
Page 149 of 267 U. S., 45 S. Ct. 280, 283, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790: * * *"
Page 153 of 267 U. S., 45 S. Ct. 280, 285, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790: "We have made a somewhat extended reference to these statutes to show that the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house, or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon, or automobile for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. * * *"
Page 158 of 267 U. S., 45 S. Ct. 280, 287, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790: * * *"
Page 159 of 267 U. S., 45 S. Ct. 280, 287, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790:
Page 160 of 267 U. S., 45 S. Ct. 280, 287, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790: * * *"
Page 161 of 267 U. S., 45 S. Ct. 280, 288, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790: "If the facts and circumstances before the officer are such as to warrant a man of prudence and caution in believing that the offense has been committed, it is sufficient. * * *"
Page 161 of 267 U. S., 45 S. Ct. 280, 288, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790: "The substance of all the definitions is a reasonable ground for belief in guilt. * * *"
Page 162 of 267 U. S., 45 S. Ct. 280, 288, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. United States
...the officers may have been trespassers does not exclude the evidence after what they saw, heard and smelled."4 In United States v. Rogato, D.C.M.D.Pa., 39 F.2d 171, 175, the Court said: "Nor does the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment extend to the open driveways on each si......
-
State v. Wright
...v. United States, 16 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1926); United States ex rel. Stoner v. Myers, 219 F.Supp. 908 (E.D.Pa.1963); United States v. Rogato, 39 F.2d 171 (M.D.Pa.1930); State v. Gillingham, 36 Wash.2d 655, 220 P.2d 333 (1950).Although exactly where the curtilage ends and the open field begin......
-
People v. Jackson
...503, 505); or 'to the open driveways on each side of the building, or the open space in the rear of the building' (United States v. Rogato, D.C.M.D.Pa., 39 F.2d 171, 175). To the same effect are Koth v. United States, 9 Cir., 16 F.2d 59, 61; Care v. United States, 10 Cir., 231 F.2d 22, 25; ......
-
United States v. Hayden
...building in an open area, entry to the area having been made by use of a driveway along the side of the building, United States v. Rogato, D.C.M.D.Pa.1930, 39 F.2d 171, 174-176; to the observation of the back seat of a car parked in an enclosed area near a building in which was located a st......