United States v. Ludwig

E.D. New York

United States v. Ludwig

42 F.2d 742, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1198

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedMay 26, 1930

DocketCr. 26853

StatusPublished

This text of 42 F.2d 742 (United States v. Ludwig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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