United States v. Ruffner, 14918.
| Decision Date | 17 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 14918.,14918. |
| Citation | 51 F.2d 579 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. RUFFNER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Risley Ensor, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md., for the United States.
Wendell D. Allen, of Baltimore, Md., for defendant.
In this case a criminal information has been filed charging the defendant with the unlawful possession of 65 gallons of intoxicating liquor and certain property designed for the manufacture of liquor; that is, in common parlance, a still. The defendant has filed a motion to suppress and exclude certain physical evidence found and seized upon the property of the defendant by prohibition agents (without search warrant or warrant for arrest) on the ground that the search and seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which declares that "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 persons or things to be seized."
In accordance with the practice under such motions, oral testimony of witnesses as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the search and seizure has been taken, and counsel for the respective parties have aided me in the consideration of the matter by the submission of oral and written arguments.
The principal witnesses at the hearing were one Switzer, a brother-in-law and employee of the defendant, and Prohibition Agent Danforth, both called by the defendant. From the evidence it appears that the defendant owns a farm of about 100 acres at or near Grimes Station, Washington county, Md. On the farm is situated a dwelling house and near by, a gristmill with adjoining garage. In consequence of numerous, but anonymous, complaints that the property was being used for the illegal manufacture of whisky, Mr. Danforth and two other prohibition agents visited the place on December 12, 1930, without a search warrant and without a warrant for arrest. As their information was purely anonymous, it is obvious that they could not validly have obtained a search warrant. At the time, the defendant, Peter Ruffner, was not in the building, but was on the farm building a fence. The agents first approached the defendant's wife to ascertain who was in charge of the premises. They were apparently referred by the wife to Switzer who was in the gristmill. Mr. Danforth then had a ten-minute conversation with Switzer who stated that he was in charge of the mill. There is a contradiction between the testimony of these two witnesses as to the substance and effect of the conversation. Switzer stated that in substance Agent Danforth said he was going to make a search and that Switzer said, "All right, go ahead." On the other hand, Agent Danforth testified that he did not say he was going to search, but on the contrary engaged Switzer in conversation in the hope of getting permission to search and that, after having told Switzer about the reports concerning the mill, Switzer, without solicitation on Danforth's part, told the latter he could look around and see for himself. Thereupon the agents did make search as a result of which they found the whisky and still (which was not in operation) concealed in a blind cellar which extended under the garage and gristmill. The entrance to the cellar was found to be through a concealed trapdoor in the floor of the garage.
Before actually finding the still and the liquor the agents had no knowledge of its existence through sense of sight, smell or otherwise. The search was, therefore, purely an exploratory one without a warrant. The government contends that on the facts the court should find from Danforth's testimony that Switzer freely and voluntarily gave the agents an invitation or permission to search; and that the consent of the agent so given was legally binding on Ruffner, the employer, and constituted an effective waiver of the latter's constitutional rights. It is, however, admitted by the government that if Switzer's account of the substance of the conversation with Agent Danforth is to be accepted as the fact, then the search was illegal because the effect of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Page
...United States v. McCunn, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1930, 40 F.2d 295; United States v. Baldocci, D.C.S.D. Cal., 1930, 42 F.2d 567; United States v. Ruffner, D.C.Md., 1931, 51 F.2d 579; United States v. Hoffenberg, D.C.E.D. N.Y., 1938, 24 F.Supp. 989; United States v. Novero, D.C.E.D.Mo., 1944, 58 F.Sup......
-
State v. Smith
...would not arise merely from the fact of such employment. Hays v. State, supra at 335, 261 P. at 234. Accord, United States v. Ruffner, 51 F.2d 579, 579--80 (D.Md.1931); State v. Cundy, 86 S.D. 766, 201 N.W.2d 236 (1972); Finn's Liquor Shop, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 31 A.D.2d 15, 294 ......
-
United States v. Sam Chin
...effect in this court in cases where the circumstances made it applicable. United States v. Goodhues, D.C., 53 F.2d 696; United States v. Ruffner, D.C., 51 F. 2d 579. It is not necessary for the reasonable protection of the individual to press the amendment to the extent of suppressing evide......
-
Lankford v. Schmidt
...84 S.Ct. 699, 11 L.Ed.2d 650 (1964); Contee v. United States, D.C. Cir., 94 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 215 F.2d 324 (1954); United States v. Ruffner, D.Md., 51 F.2d 579 (1931). See also Aquilar v. United States, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 Most of the eight turn-ups as to which witne......