Hardesty v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Hardesty v. United States

164 F. 420, 91 C.C.A. 1, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4646

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 1908

DocketNo. 1,802

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 164 F. 420 (Hardesty v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hardesty v. United States, 164 F. 420, 91 C.C.A. 1, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4646 (6th Cir. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have given this case careful consideration, and fail to find any ground upon which the judgment should be reversed. The evidence elicited through the use of a search warrant, and to which objection was made, was admissible, however irregular the search warrant may have been, and however improper its use for the purpose of securing evidence. Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585, 24 Sup. Ct. 372, 48 L. Ed. 575. Aside from this, the warrant is not in evidence, and no error has been assigned in relation to it, or the evidence which was discovered by its use. It is admissible for this court to consider a plain error though not assigned. No such appears in respect of any illegal use of a search warrant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have given this case careful consideration, and fail to find any ground upon which the judgment should be reversed. The evidence elicited through the use of a search warrant, and to which objection was made, was admissible, however irregular the search warrant may have been, and however improper its use for the purpose of securing evidence. Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585, 24 Sup. Ct. 372, 48 L. Ed. 575. Aside from this, the warrant is not in evidence, and no error has been assigned in relation to it, or the evidence which was discovered by its use. It is admissible for this court to consider a plain error though not assigned. No such appears in respect of any illegal use of a search warrant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 F. 420, 91 C.C.A. 1, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardesty-v-united-states-ca6-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack