United States v. Seiler, 19591.
| Decision Date | 08 August 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 19591.,19591. |
| Citation | 40 F. Supp. 895 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SEILER et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Bernard J. Flynn, U. S. Atty., and K. Thos. Everngam, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
Charles W. Main, of Baltimore, Md., for defendants.
The indictment in this case is in the usual form for alleged illegal liquor manufacture. The third count charges a violation of 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 2834 in the unlawful making and fermenting of whiskey mash. The defendants have filed a motion to suppress evidence of an illicit still on their premises obtained under a search warrant. It is contended that the affidavit for the warrant did not show probable cause. The affidavit was made by two experienced investigators of the Alcohol Tax Unit and in substance states that (while lawfully on defendants' premises near their dwelling house) they "detected the odor of whiskey mash emanating from the dwelling house". The prior record of the defendants for an unlawful still on the same premises was also stated. The latter, of course, would not be admissible in evidence on a trial.
After hearing counsel and reviewing the pertinent authorities, I have reached the conclusion that the motion must be overruled.
In a proper setting a sense of smell may constitute probable cause for believing a particular crime is being committed. DePater v. United States, 4 Cir., 34 F.2d 275, 74 A.L.R. 1413; Benton v. United States, 4 Cir., 28 F.2d 695; Mulrooney v. United States, 4 Cir., 46 F.2d 995; Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 466, 76 L.Ed. 951.
A distinction must be made between the sufficiency as probable cause of odors of whiskey in relation to the crime of possession of untaxpaid liquor, and the odor of whiskey mash in relation to the manufacture of liquor or the fermentation of mash for distillation or production of alcohol in a dwelling house. See 26 U.S.C.A. Int. Rev.Code, § 2834. 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev. Code, § 2819, prohibits stills in dwelling houses.
The mere smell of whiskey is of itself not sufficient to constitute probable cause of the commission of the crime of possession of untaxpaid liquor. United States v. Lerner, D.C.Md., 35 F.Supp. 271, 274, citing numerous recent cases to that effect. See also United States v. Sam Chin, D.C.Md., 24 F.Supp. 14, 20. And under the National Prohibition Act, now repealed, the mere odor of whiskey mash emanating from a dwelling house was not sufficient probable cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hotchkiss
...Cir., 53 F.2d 184; United States v. Sam Chin, D.C.Md., 24 F.Supp. 14; United States v. Lerner, D.C. Md., 35 F.Supp. 271; United States v. Seiler, D.C.Md., 40 F.Supp. 895. In a very recent case of this nature, In re Ginsburg, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 749, 750, it was succinctly and aptly said by Cir......
-
United States v. Gillette
...cause of the operation of an illegal still, e. g., Monnette v. United States, 299 F.2d 847, 850 (5th Cir. 1962), United States v. Seiler, 40 F.Supp. 895, 896 (D.Md.1941); and, at the least, is a very strong factor in determining probable cause, United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 111,......
-
Byrd v. State
...law, and it has been distinguished from other federal liquor crimes in a way which is of significance here. Thus in United States v. Seiler, D.C.Md., 40 F.Supp. 895, 896, the court 'A distinction must be made between the sufficiency as probable cause of odors of whiskey in relation to the c......
-
Phillips v. State, G-41
...to an absurdity. In Pegueno v. State, 85 So.2d 600 (Fla.1956), the Florida Supreme Court observed, in the light of United States v. Seiler, D.C.Md., 40 F.Supp. 895, that the odor of fermenting mash emanating from a dwelling house and detected by experienced revenue officers was in itself pr......