(DOWNLOAD) "Wisniewski v. United States" by Sixth Circuit Circuit Court Of Appeals ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Wisniewski v. United States
- Author : Sixth Circuit Circuit Court Of Appeals
- Release Date : January 06, 1931
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
The only question presented for our consideration is whether, at the time of defendants arrest, the arresting officers had probable cause for believing that intoxicating liquor was being transported in the defendants automobile. Probable cause has been defined by the Supreme Court as "reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the party is guilty of the offence with which he is charged." Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645, 24 L. Ed. 1035; Dumbra v. U.S., 268 U.S. 435, 441, 45 S. Ct. 546, 69 L. Ed. 1032. Compare: Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132, 155, 156, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790; Steele v. U.S., No. 1,267 U.S. 498, 504, 45 S. Ct. 414, 69 L. Ed. 757. Certainly, as observed in Byars v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28, 29, 47 S. Ct. 248, 71 L. Ed. 520, "a search prosecuted in violation of the Constitution is not made lawful by what it brings to light," but each case must stand or fall upon the particular facts known to the arresting officers before or at the time of the arrest. Peru v. U.S., 4 F.2d 881 (C.C.A. 8). There have been numerous cases in which the facts disclosed have been held insufficient to establish probable cause. Compare: Gambino v. U.S., 275 U.S. 310, 48 S. Ct. 137, 72 L. Ed. 293, 52 A.L.R. 1381; Brown v. U.S., 4 F.2d 246 (C.C.A. 9); Emite v. U.S., 15 F.2d 623 (C.C.A. 5); U.S. v. Allen, 16 F.2d 320 (D.C. Fla.); U.S. v. Di Corvo, 37 F.2d 124 (D.C. Conn.). However, if the facts are sufficient, in the opinion of the court, to establish such probable cause, the arrest must be upheld. Carroll v. U.S., supra; Hilsinger v. U.S., 2 F.2d 241 (C.C.A. 6); Daisen v. U.S., 4 F.2d 382 (C.C.A. 6); Lafazia v. U.S., 4 F.2d 817 (C.C.A. 1); Ramsey v. U.S., 27 F.2d 502 (C.C.A. 6); U.S. v. Lukas, 35 F.2d 599 (D.C. Mass.). Citations of authorities to the same effect as those above given might be greatly multiplied upon both sides of the question, but the foregoing are sufficient to establish the principles here applicable.