From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fine v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Jan 4, 1954
207 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1954)

Summary

In Fine v. United States, 207 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1954), this Court concluded that a search warrant authorizing the search of "the premises known as the Harve Fine residence and being a one story white frame dwelling with green shingle roof.

Summary of this case from United States v. Wright

Opinion

No. 11952.

October 13, 1953. Writ of Certiorari Denied January 4, 1954. See 74 S.Ct. 310.

W.E. Badgett, Knoxville, Tenn., for appellant. Taylor Badgett, Knoxville, Tenn., on the brief.

John C. Crawford, Jr., U.S. Atty., Marysville, Tenn., for appellee. John F. Dugger, Elizabethton, Tenn., on the brief.

Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.


The appellant was convicted and sentenced under two counts of an indictment charging him with possession and concealment of liquor in unstamped containers in violation of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. The question presented is the validity of a search and seizure at appellant's residence, and is raised by motion to suppress the evidence, which was denied by the District Court.

The warrant covered "the premises known as the Harve Fine residence and being a one story white frame dwelling with green shingle roof. Said house of about four rooms and located on the southeast corner of Mulberry Street and Cosby Cut-off Road in Newport, Tenn. * * *." The search warrant stated that "there is probable cause to believe that the property so described is being concealed on the premises above described" and commanded the officers "to search forthwith the place named * * *." The house searched was on premises belonging to Harve Fine, was white and was located on Mulberry Street in Newport, Tennessee. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether it was situated at the intersection of Cosby Cut-off Road or of Prospect Avenue with Mulberry Street.

The house searched was the house described in the warrant and situated on the premises described. A description of the property is sufficient if the officer can with reasonable effort identify the intended place. Steele v. United States No. 1, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757; Sparks v. United States, 6 Cir., 90 F.2d 61, 63.

The affidavit upon which the search warrant was based stated that the affiant saw several cases of whiskey in one of the bedrooms of the Fine residence. The officers found no distilled spirits in the house and then went into the yard some 20 feet behind the house, broke the lock upon a shed, and found 5 half-gallon jars of whiskey, which are the basis of the prosecution. It was not improper to extend the search to this shed. The warrant authorized search of the "premises known as the Harve Fine residence" and of the "place named." These terms are broader than a mere description of the house and certainly include the curtilage. While the shed is protected from unreasonable search and seizure, Roberson v. United States, 6 Cir., 165 F.2d 752; Baxter v. United States, 6 Cir., 188 F.2d 119, it is not protected from a valid search.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Fine v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Jan 4, 1954
207 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1954)

In Fine v. United States, 207 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1954), this Court concluded that a search warrant authorizing the search of "the premises known as the Harve Fine residence and being a one story white frame dwelling with green shingle roof.

Summary of this case from United States v. Wright

In Fine v. United States, 207 F.2d 324, 325 (6th Cir. 1953), the Sixth Circuit held that a warrant, which sought to search "'the premises known as the Harve Fine residence,'" and then specifically described the house, also covered the locked shed located twenty feet behind the house, because the warrant's description was broad enough to include the curtilage.

Summary of this case from United States v. Green

In Fine v. United States, 6 Cir., 207 F.2d 324, the Court held that a warrant for the "premises" and "place named" was sufficient to permit the search of a shed some 20 feet to the rear of a house, noting that said terms are "broader than a mere description of the house and certainly include the curtilage."

Summary of this case from United States v. Thomas
Case details for

Fine v. United States

Case Details

Full title:FINE v. UNITED STATES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Jan 4, 1954

Citations

207 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1954)

Citing Cases

State v. Champagne

" Thus, unlike the warrant in this case, the warrant in Cote did not specify the area to be searched as the…

People v. Valle

The two buildings were, "for all practical purposes, one single location because the outbuilding [was] within…