United States v. Various Documents, Papers and Books of Briggs & Turivas
| Decision Date | 14 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 2980. |
| Citation | 278 F. 944 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, PAPERS AND BOOKS OF BRIGGS & TURIVAS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Robert A. Milroy, of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.
John L Hopkins and William Burry, both of Chicago, Ill., for defendant in error.
Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
Commissioner Mason of Chicago, on the affidavit and oral testimony of a revenue agent, issued a search warrant on which the marshal seized various documents, papers, and books belonging to Briggs & Turivas, Incorporated. Thereupon Briggs & Turivas appeared before the Commissioner and filed a petition to have the search warrant quashed and the property returned. To this petition the district attorney filed an answer; and the Commissioner, after hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, entered an order or judgment in accordance with the prayer of the petition. For the purpose of having the Commissioner's judgment reviewed, the United States sued out this writ of error addressed to the District Court.
Briggs & Turivas insist that the writ of error be dismissed because (1) This court has no appellate jurisdiction over the order or judgment of the Commissioner; (2) the proceeding was based on the alleged commission of a felony, and the case was therefore of the kind in which the government has no right of review; and (3) the order was interlocutory.
In support of the correctness of the Commissioner's action Briggs & Turivas contend that: (1) No facts were presented which showed either directly or inferentially any probable cause for believing that a felony had been committed; (2) nor that the seized property was the means of committing any felony; and (3) the search warrant contained no particular description of the property to be seized and was therefore only the general warrant against which the Fourth Amendment was aimed. And the cases of Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 Sup.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746; Silverthorne v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 Sup.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed 319; Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 Sup.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647; and Veeder v. United States, 252 F. 414, 164 C.C.A. 338, are cited.
Inasmuch as the record bears out the contentions in support of the correctness of the Commissioner's action, there is no merit in the government's writ of error. But we have no judgment of a District...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. State
...169;Swart v. Kimball (1880) 43 Mich. 443, 451, 5 N. W. 635;State v. Lock (1924) 302 Mo. 400, 418, 259 S. W. 116;U. S. v. Various Documents (C. C. A. 1921) 278 F. 944;U. S. v. Pitotto (D. C. 1920) 267 F. 603;Wagner v. U. S. (C. C. A. 1925) 8 F. (2d) 581; Reg. v. Walker (1887) (Can.) 13 Ont. ......
-
Wallace v. State
... ... of such intoxicating liquors, and all books, papers, bills, ... documents and letters ... [157 N.E. 660] ... 770; Veeder v. United States (1918), 252 F ... 414; Lochnane v ... Lock, supra ; United ... States v. Various Documents (1921), 278 F. 944; ... United [199 ... ...
-
Sick v. City of Buffalo, N. Y.
...542 F.2d 462, 463 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Haley, 541 F.2d 678 (8th Cir. 1974); cf. United States v. Various Documents, Papers and Books of Briggs & Turivas, 278 F. 944 (7th Cir. 1921) (order of Commissioner not directly appealable), cert. denied, 258 U.S. 617, 42 S.Ct. 271, 66 L.E......
-
U.S. v. Reeds, 76-1351
...of probable cause, they are misdirected when the district court has been by-passed. Cf. United States v. Various Documents, Papers and Books of Briggs & Turivas, Inc., 278 F. 944 (7th Cir. 1921). Not only does the available case law point in the direction of resort to the district court for......