General

UNITED STATES v. LUDWIG

42 F.2d 742·United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York·1930

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

UNITED STATES v. LUDWIG. Cr. 26853. District Court, E. D. New York. May 26, 1930. Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the United States. Mortimer H. Michaels, of New York City, for defendant. [MAJORITY — CAMPBELL, District Judge.] 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.