United States v. Ludwig

42 F.2d 742, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1198
District Court, E.D. New York·Decided May 26, 1930·No. Cr. 26853·Published

Opinion

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion to suppress evidence.

The policeman who made the arrest and seizure was a peace officer of the state and had a right to cheek up the defendant’s records, if defendant was a permittee.

The place entered was a store, and the arresting officer had a right to enter. Dillon v. United States (C. C. A.). 279 F. 639; Lee Kwong Nom v. United States (C. C. A.) 20 F.(2d) 470.

Prom the affidavit in opposition, of the arresting officer, it appears that a crime was committed in his presence, and such being the case, an arrest and seizure were legally made. Lee Kwong Nom v. United States, supra; McBride v. United States (C. C. A.) 284 F. 416.

The motion to suppress is denied.

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

United States v. Ludwig, 42 F.2d 742, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1198 (E.D.N.Y. 1930).

42 F.2d 742 (United States v. Ludwig) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lee Kwong Nom v. United States
20 F.2d 470 (Second Circuit, 1927)
Dillon v. United States
279 F. 639 (Second Circuit, 1921)
McBride v. United States
284 F. 416 (Fifth Circuit, 1922)