United States v. Wihinier
284 F. 528, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1228
Opinion
The motion to suppress, I think, should be denied. The search warrant gives the number, 916 Spruce street, Seattle, Wash., operated and occupied by T. H. Wihinier. The premises searched were occupied by the defendant. The fact that the premises were an apartment house does not invalidate the search of the defendant’s premises as directed by the search warrant, and no other person can complain.1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Wihinier, 284 F. 528, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1228 (W.D. Wash. 1922).
284 F. 528 (United States v. Wihinier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Curwood
338 F. Supp. 1104 (D. Massachusetts, 1972)
Garner v. State
182 S.E.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
United States v. Savannah Hinton, United States of America v. Susie Powers, Alias Susie Pendleton
219 F.2d 324 (Seventh Circuit, 1955)
United States v. Barkouskas
38 F.2d 837 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1930)
United States v. Nagle
34 F.2d 952 (N.D. New York, 1929)
United States ex rel. Sunrise Products Co. v. Epstein
33 F.2d 982 (E.D. New York, 1929)
Hogrefe v. United States
30 F.2d 640 (Ninth Circuit, 1929)
United States v. Yablonsky
8 F.2d 318 (S.D. New York, 1925)
Snedegar v. State
146 N.E. 849 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1925)
Walker v. State
142 N.E. 16 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1924)
United States v. Lepper
288 F. 136 (W.D. New York, 1923)