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.
UNITED STATES v. STEERS, 1931 — 51 F.2d 125 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. STEERS
51 F.2d 125·United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York·1931
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. STEERS.
No. 28572.
District Court, E. D. New York.
June 15, 1931.
Howard W. Ameli, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Kenneth E. Yought and Emanuel Bubliek, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel,), for the United States.
George Eilperin, of Brooklyn, K Y., for defendant.
[MAJORITY — BYERS, District Judge.]
BYERS, District Judge.
Motion to preclude, ete., because of an alleged unlawful search and seizure. The defendant, who was taken into custody while driving a Chevrolet truck, was apprehended by an officer for alleged reekless driving. He produced an operator’s license, on request, but no registration certificate of the motor vehicle.
The arresting officer then took the defendant and the truck to a police station, where, by telephone inquiry, the officer ascertained that the license plates on the truck were issued for a truck of another manufacture. The violation of the Motor Vehiele Law so disclosed was prosecuted, and resulted in a plea of guilty, and a fine in the magistrate’s court.
After ascertaining the fact that the license plates used on the Chevrolet truck were issued for another vehicle, the officer made a search of the truck, and discovered ten beer barrels bearing no label. The contents proved to be of the prohibited content.
The search is believed not to have been an unreasonable one, in view of the violation of law involved in the use of license plates issued for another vehicle. Such a discovery challenged investigation by the arresting officer in the due performance of his duties.
Motion denied.