Martinelli v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Martinelli v. United States

45 F.2d 393, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3652

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1930

DocketNo. 6149

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 F.2d 393 (Martinelli 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

Martinelli v. United States, 45 F.2d 393, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3652 (9th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

The appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession, and also the unlawful transportation, of intoxicating liquor. The intoxicating liquor was found in his possession in a motortruck which was searched by the prohibition officer without a, search warrant. The only question involved in this appeal is the authority of the officer to make the search. The question was raised in the lower court by a motion to suppress the evidence and by objection upon the trial to the introduction of the evidence and by motion to strike it out.

The facts upon which the officer acted in making- the search, and the law applicable thereto, are correctly summed up in the brief of the appellee, as follows:

“Shortly after midnight the officer observed this illegitimate truck—that is one without any commercial signs on it—drive up to a known iliicit beer joint where be had raided two weeks before and found five percent beer, the truck driver go< inside and bring out a man and together commence to take from the truck unlabeled new cases of a kind which conceal the bottle and in which ‘illegitimate’ beer only is sold, smelled the odor of brew from the truck and then accosted the men who ‘got seared and wouldn’t answer.’

“All of this the officer knew either before the seizure or the search.

“From his experience—that is first hand knowledge—Agent Davis knew that the place the truck stopped to unload was a wild eat beer joint; that wild cat beer was sold in eases such as he saw on the truck. Such information he had a right to consider with such other circumstances as he observed in concluding- there was probable cause to believe the truck was transporting intoxicating liquor. Carroll v. U. S., 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790; Lafazia et al. v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 817; [394]*394Segurola v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 563; U. S. v. Lukas (D. C. Mass.) 35 F.(2d) 599.

“Officers have that information which constitutes ‘probable cause where the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that intoxicating liquor was being’ transported. Herter v. U. S., (C. C. A. 9th) 33 F.(2d) 403, 406.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

The appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession, and also the unlawful transportation, of intoxicating liquor. The intoxicating liquor was found in his possession in a motortruck which was searched by the prohibition officer without a, search warrant. The only question involved in this appeal is the authority of the officer to make the search. The question was raised in the lower court by a motion to suppress the evidence and by objection upon the trial to the introduction of the evidence and by motion to strike it out.

The facts upon which the officer acted in making- the search, and the law applicable thereto, are correctly summed up in the brief of the appellee, as follows:

“Shortly after midnight the officer observed this illegitimate truck—that is one without any commercial signs on it—drive up to a known iliicit beer joint where be had raided two weeks before and found five percent beer, the truck driver go< inside and bring out a man and together commence to take from the truck unlabeled new cases of a kind which conceal the bottle and in which ‘illegitimate’ beer only is sold, smelled the odor of brew from the truck and then accosted the men who ‘got seared and wouldn’t answer.’

“All of this the officer knew either before the seizure or the search.

“From his experience—that is first hand knowledge—Agent Davis knew that the place the truck stopped to unload was a wild eat beer joint; that wild cat beer was sold in eases such as he saw on the truck. Such information he had a right to consider with such other circumstances as he observed in concluding- there was probable cause to believe the truck was transporting intoxicating liquor. Carroll v. U. S., 267 U. S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A. L. R. 790; Lafazia et al. v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 817; [394]*394Segurola v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 16 F.(2d) 563; U. S. v. Lukas (D. C. Mass.) 35 F.(2d) 599.

“Officers have that information which constitutes ‘probable cause where the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that intoxicating liquor was being’ transported. Herter v. U. S., (C. C. A. 9th) 33 F.(2d) 403, 406.”

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F.2d 393, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinelli-v-united-states-ca9-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack