Hoke Booth, David Loyd Meadow, and William Smith v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Hoke Booth, David Loyd Meadow, and William Smith v. United States

404 F.2d 1096

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 17, 1969·No. 25604·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The defendants were convicted for carrying on the business of distillers of spirituous liquors without having given the required bond under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5173, 5601(a). 1 The court below is charged with error in failing to grant a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence obtained through alleged improper search and seizure.

We find the evidence to be more than sufficient to show probable cause to make the arrest of appellants and, further, none of the evidence was gained by an illegal search. Seay v. United States, 380 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1967).

Affirmed.

1

. Appellants were three of five defendants convicted. Two defendants did not appeal.

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

PER CURIAM:

The defendants were convicted for carrying on the business of distillers of spirituous liquors without having given the required bond under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5173, 5601(a). 1 The court below is charged with error in failing to grant a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence obtained through alleged improper search and seizure.

We find the evidence to be more than sufficient to show probable cause to make the arrest of appellants and, further, none of the evidence was gained by an illegal search. Seay v. United States, 380 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1967).

Affirmed.

1

. Appellants were three of five defendants convicted. Two defendants did not appeal.

Hoke Booth, David Loyd Meadow, and William Smith v. United States, 404 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

404 F.2d 1096 (Hoke Booth, David Loyd Meadow, and William Smith v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related