Queck v. Hawker

282 F. 942
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 15, 1922
DocketNo. 744
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 F. 942 (Queck v. Hawker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Queck v. Hawker, 282 F. 942 (W.D. Pa. 1922).

Opinion

THOMSON, District Judge.

This is a petition for the return of goods seized and held under search warrant issued by the United States commissioner, the application being based on the ground, among others, that the search warrant was illegally issued.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,. and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It will thus clearly appear that the existence of probable cause is a judicial conclusion to be found by the commissioner or judicial officer to whom application for the warrant is made. It is a vital and jurisdictional fact, and without such finding no search warrant can lawfully issue.

The finding of probable cause should be based, not on the opinion or belief of a witness or witnesses, but on facts set forth in the affidavit from which the existence of probable cause may be fairly inferred. Otherwise the conclusion would be that of the witness, and [943]*943not of the judicial officer in whom alone the Constitution has vested the extraordinary power to issue search warrants, and who is thus legally charged with the duty, of preventing unreasonable searches and seizures.

As the record does not show any finding of probable cause by the commissioner, we think the warrant fatally defective, and therefore the seizure thereunder illegal. Entertaining these views, the search warrant being invalid, the seizure Was necessarily illegal, and the goods seized thereunder are directed to he returned in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

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

Related

State v. Owens
259 S.W. 100 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
United States v. Kaplan
286 F. 963 (S.D. Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 F. 942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queck-v-hawker-pawd-1922.