Timonen v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Timonen v. United States

286 F. 935, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2797

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1923

DocketNo. 3743

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 286 F. 935 (Timonen 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

Timonen v. United States, 286 F. 935, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2797 (6th Cir. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There was no testimony given, or offered, substantially tending to show that the state police, who made the seizure of the moonshine whisky put in evidence, were acting by federal au-> thority. Their acts were equally pertinent to the enforcement of the Michigan statute. The acceptance and use by the federal government of evidence which the state agents have seized is not retroactive to make the seizure a federal act, and proof that the state police were co-operating with the federal agents, and turned over to them those cases which, like this, the police thought appropriate for prosecution under the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305), falls far short of showing that they were representing the United States government in making this arrest and seizure. Hence the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not apply. Weeks v. U. S., 232 U. S. 383, 398, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177; Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465, 475, 41 Sup. Ct 574, 65 L. Ed. 1048, 13 A. L. R. 1159. It is unnecessary to consider what would have been the result of the same conduct by federal agents.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

There was no testimony given, or offered, substantially tending to show that the state police, who made the seizure of the moonshine whisky put in evidence, were acting by federal au-> thority. Their acts were equally pertinent to the enforcement of the Michigan statute. The acceptance and use by the federal government of evidence which the state agents have seized is not retroactive to make the seizure a federal act, and proof that the state police were co-operating with the federal agents, and turned over to them those cases which, like this, the police thought appropriate for prosecution under the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305), falls far short of showing that they were representing the United States government in making this arrest and seizure. Hence the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not apply. Weeks v. U. S., 232 U. S. 383, 398, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177; Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U. S. 465, 475, 41 Sup. Ct 574, 65 L. Ed. 1048, 13 A. L. R. 1159. It is unnecessary to consider what would have been the result of the same conduct by federal agents.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 F. 935, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timonen-v-united-states-ca6-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack