Waxman v. United States
| Citation | 12 F.2d 775 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4799.,4799. |
| Parties | WAXMAN v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Williams, Kelly & McDonald, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Geo. J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and T. J. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
Complaint was made to the prohibition office at San Francisco that a still was maintained and operated at 618 Thirty-Third avenue by one Charles Waxman. On the evening of December 30, 1925, two prohibition agents drove by the premises in question and detected a strong odor of mash emanating therefrom. The agents called two police officers to their assistance, and the four visited the place. Being admitted, they informed Waxman that there was a strong odor of mash coming from the house, and that there must be a still at some place on the premises. Waxman said: or "Go ahead and find it, then." The officers then proceeded to search the premises without objections, and after searching for about three-quarters of an hour they located a still with much difficulty in a subbasement beneath the house.
When confronted with the still and other paraphernalia upon which the present prosecution was based, Waxman freely admitted that the property belonged to him, that he was manufacturing the liquor for sale, and said that the other occupants of the premises had no connection therewith. Before the trial a motion to suppress evidence was interposed and denied, and upon the trial the property thus seized was admitted in evidence over objection. The defendant was found guilty, and a writ of error has been sued out to review the judgment.
The only error assigned is based on the denial of the motion to suppress and the admission in evidence of the property thus seized. The relation of the plaintiff in error to the premises in question is not entirely clear. In his petition to suppress evidence he averred that the premises were occupied by him as his residence and the residence of the members of his family; that the premises were his private home, used exclusively by him and his family, and not used in whole or in part as a shop, store, saloon, or boarding house. It appeared on the trial, however, that the plaintiff in error was simply a lodger there, paying for his room and board, and renting the subbasement, in which the still and other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Page
...(Raine v. United States, 1924, 9 Cir., 299 F. 407; Giacolone v. United States, 1926, 9 Cir., 13 F.2d 110; Waxman v. United States, 1926, 9 Cir., 12 F.2d 775; Poetter v. United States, 1929, 9 Cir., 31 F.2d 438). In certain cases where there was much less evidence of consent than here, we ha......
-
People v. Michael
...328 U.S. 582, 593-594, 66 S.Ct. 1256, with Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 12-13, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436; Waxman v. United States, 9 Cir., 12 F.2d 775, with Pritchett v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 67, 143 P.2d 622, 623-625; Smuk v. People, 72 Colo. 97, 209 P. 636, 637, with Salata v. Unit......
-
People v. Robinson
...328 U.S. 582, 593-594, 66 S.Ct. 1256 ; with Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 12-13, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436; Waxman v. United States, 9 Cir., 12 F.2d 775, with Pritchett v. State, 78 Okl.Crim. 67, 143 P.2d 622, 623-625; Smuk v. People, 72 Colo. 97, 209 P. 636, 637, with Salata v. U......
-
City of St. Paul v. Stovall
...to assert that the same was unreasonable, and under such circumstances there is no need of a search warrant." See, also, Waxman v. United States, 9 Cir., 12 F.2d 775; Schutte v. United States, 6 Cir., 21 F.2d 830; Poetter v. United States, 9 Cir., 31 F.2d 438. In State v. Siporen, 215 Minn.......