Fall

Fall v. United States

Good Law
33 F.2d 71·1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2660
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 10, 1929No. 5742California805 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rudkin, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction under tbe National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). The principal error assigned challenges the sufficiency of a search warrant and the legality of a search and seizure made thereunder. The search warrant described the place to be searched as “a ranch with small building used for residence, located about 5 miles in a westerly direction from the town of Silver Bow, Montana.” The question at once arises whether such a description satisfies the requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of *72 the United States that the warrant shall particularly describe the plaee to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. All of the authorities agree that the description in the warrant must be sufficient to enable the officer to whom it is directed to locate the place definitely and with certainty, but it is not always easy to say when that degree of certainty exists or when that result has been accomplished. In Steele v. United States No. 1, 267 U. S. 498, 503 , 45 S. Ct. 414, 416 ( 69 L. Ed. 757 ), the court said: “It is enough if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.