Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Schutte v. United States

Schutte v. United States, 21 F.2d 830 (6th Cir. 1927)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1927-10-15
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. In the search of a dwelling made by consent, no search warrant is necessary. Gatterdam v. U.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Schutte v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
SCHUTTE v. UNITED STATES,21 F.2d 830(6th Cir. 1927)
SCHUTTE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4916.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
October 15, 1927.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan; Fred M. Raymond, Judge.

Criminal prosecution by the United States against Bernardus Schutte. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
F. Roland Allaben, of Grand Rapids, Mich. (Dunham Cholette, of Grand Rapids, Mich., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Bowman, U.S. Atty., of Grand Rapids, Mich. (Louis H. Grettenberger, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Grand Rapids, Mich., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and HICKENLOOPER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. In the search of a dwelling made by consent, no search warrant is necessary. Gatterdam v. U.S., C.C.A. 6,5 F.2d 673,674. As to whether such consent was freely given, there was a question of fact. The court found as a fact that consent was given and without any duress; this conclusion was amply supported by the evidence; no question of law thereon remains for review.

We cannot think that the statute of 1921 (U.S. Code, tit. 18, § 53 [18 USCA § 53]) intended to penalize a search to which the householder voluntarily agreed, much less, to make inadmissible evidence thus found. See U.S. v. Lindsly (D.C.)7 F.2d 247.

Such possession as was here shown may constitute an offense separate from manufacture or sale (Albrecht v. U.S.,273 U.S. 1,47 S. Ct. 250,71 L. Ed. 505); and by the terms of the act (section 33, National Prohibition Act [27 USCA § 50; Comp. St. § 10138½t]), possession of liquor is prima facie evidence that it was kept for the purposes of sale, and hence that a nuisance was being maintained.

Regardless of the confession to which objection was made, the evidence made guilt practically indisputable.Page 968