Carlson v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Carlson v. United States

28 F.2d 1008, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2524

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 1928

DocketNo. 5357

StatusPublished

This text of 28 F.2d 1008 (Carlson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlson v. United States, 28 F.2d 1008, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2524 (9th Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment of conviction under the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). There was testimony on the part of the government tending to show that government agents entered the hotel of which the plaintiff in error was the proprietor, in the city of Seattle, and as one of the agents approached the room occupied by the plaintiff in error he saw through the open door several persons drinHng intoxicating liquor and a bottle of intoxicating Equor on the dresser. The plaintiff in error was thereupon arrested and the Equor seized. The only question presented by the record is the il-legaEty of the search and seizure. But inasmuch as the offense was committed in the immediate presence of the officer, no warrant of arrest or search warrant was neeessary, and the legality of the search and seizure does not enter into the case.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment of conviction under the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). There was testimony on the part of the government tending to show that government agents entered the hotel of which the plaintiff in error was the proprietor, in the city of Seattle, and as one of the agents approached the room occupied by the plaintiff in error he saw through the open door several persons drinHng intoxicating liquor and a bottle of intoxicating Equor on the dresser. The plaintiff in error was thereupon arrested and the Equor seized. The only question presented by the record is the il-legaEty of the search and seizure. But inasmuch as the offense was committed in the immediate presence of the officer, no warrant of arrest or search warrant was neeessary, and the legality of the search and seizure does not enter into the case.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 F.2d 1008, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlson-v-united-states-ca9-1928.