Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Arvid J. CARLSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error, 1928 — 28 F.2d 1008 · caselaw · US
General
Arvid J. CARLSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant in Error
28 F.2d 1008·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1928
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
Arvid J. CARLSON, Plaintiff In Error, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant In Error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 15, 1928.
No. 5357.
Edward H. Chavelle, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff in error.
Anthony Savage, U. S. Atty., and Jeffrey Heiman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash.
Before RUDKIN, DIETRICH, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.]
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment of conviction under the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). There was testimony on the part of the government tending to show that government agents entered the hotel of which the plaintiff in error was the proprietor, in the city of Seattle, and as one of the agents approached the room occupied by the plaintiff in error he saw through the open door several persons drinHng intoxicating liquor and a bottle of intoxicating Equor on the dresser. The plaintiff in error was thereupon arrested and the Equor seized. The only question presented by the record is the il-legaEty of the search and seizure. But inasmuch as the offense was committed in the immediate presence of the officer, no warrant of arrest or search warrant was neeessary, and the legality of the search and seizure does not enter into the case.
The judgment is affirmed.