United States v. Story
| Decision Date | 30 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 4046. |
| Citation | 294 F. 517 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. STORY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John D Hartman, U.S. Atty., and W. C. Williams, Asst. U.S. Atty both of San Antonio, Tex.
Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.
This is a writ of error from an order of the District Court dismissing an information in the nature of a libel, filed by the government, seeking the condemnation of an automobile alleged to have been forfeited to the government, because of its use to illegally transport intoxicating liquor. The case was tried by the District Judge on an agreed statement of facts, which admitted that the claimant had made an illegal use of the car sought to be condemned and had been convicted for the offense. At the time of his conviction, no order condemning the car was made by the District Court. Subsequently the government filed this information, seeking the condemnation of the car as the property of the defendant in error. Condemnation was resisted by the defendant in error upon the grounds (1) that the seizure was made by state officers; (2) that the car was not offending when the marshal took it over from the state officers; and (3) that the only remedy available to the government was that provided by section 26 of title 2 of the National Prohibition Act (Comp St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 10138 1/2mm), by an order of sale made in the criminal cause upon conviction of the person arrested when the car was seized, the owner being permitted to show good cause against condemnation, if he could. The District Court took the view that seizure by state officers and subsequent surrender of the car to the United States marshal did not authorize condemnation by the government.
I and II. The Eighteenth Amendment vests concurrent enforcement powers in the states, through either their legislative bodies or public officers. National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350, 40 Sup.Ct. 486, 588, 64 L.Ed. 946. Section 2 of title 2 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 10138 1/2a) adopts section 1014 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. Sec. 1674) as part of the procedure applicable to the enforcement of the act. Section 1014 provides for the arrest of offenders against the laws of the United States by state magistrates, 'agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state. ' It seems clear that Congress contemplated the enforcement of the amendment and of enforcement legislation through state officers, as well as through federal officers. Section 26 of the National Prohibition Act authorizes 'any officers of the law' to make the arrest of the offender and the seizure of the offending intoxicating liquor and of the vehicle transporting it, and to proceed against the offender 'under the provisions of this title in any court having competent jurisdiction. ' It is evident from the language quoted that Congress did not provide for an enforcement in section 26 by government officers and federal courts exclusively.
The machinery of section 26, relating to the forfeiture of the offending vehicle, can as well be set in motion by a seizure by state officers, as can the prosecution of the offending person be commenced by an arrest of the person by state officers and state examining magistrates. There is no need to show that the vehicle proceeded against be still violating the law, after seizure by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE LUCKY LINDY
...U. S. 321, 47 S. Ct. 154, 71 L. Ed. 279, 47 A. L. R. 1025; Dodge v. U. S., 272 U. S. 530, 47 S. Ct. 191, 71 L. Ed. 392; United States v. Story (C. C. A.) 294 F. 517; The Halcon (C. C. A.) 63 F.(2d) 638; The Conejo (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 264. But the original seizure was in navigable waters. W......
-
Assertion of Jurisdiction by the United States Over Foreign Vessels Seized Pursuant to a Special Arrangement., 80-68
...Trust Corp., 31 F.2d 494 (W.D. N.Y. 1929); United States v. One Studebaker Seven-Passenger Sedan, 4 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1925); United States v. Story, supra, a might decide that this line of cases is distinguishable. Such adoption might also raise questions as to whether the original seizure......
-
Carpenter v. Carden
...294 F. 515 CARPENTER v. CARDEN et al. No. 35.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.December 3, 1923 ... Taylor, ... Knowles & ... ...
-
Dodge v. United States the Ray of Block Island, 341
...section 26 held that the Government might adopt the seizure and give it retroactive effect. This is in accord with United States v. Story, 294 F. 517 (C. C. A. Fifth Circuit) but contrary to United States v. Loomis, 297 F. 359 (C. C. A. Ninth Circuit); this last decision being considerably ......