Carroll vs U.S - case brief PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief...

Description

Kara Chrispen CJS 305-01 Carroll vs. United States 267 U.S. 132 (1925) FACTS: On September 29, 1921 Cronewett and Scully, federal prohibition officers, were posing as people who wanted to buy three cases of whisky at an apartment where Kurska, Kiro, and Carroll were at. These three men said they would have to go across to the other end of Grand Rapids to get the liquor and they would be back in a half an hour or so. They went and said they could not get the liquor because the vendor was not in. They said they could get it tomorrow, but never showed up. Cronenwett was out patrolling and looking for people violating the Prohibition Act in the following days. On October 6 th, Cronenwett saw the same Oldsmobile roadster go by him as the one that he saw the three guys leave in earlier that week. He radioed into Scully that he saw the car and he followed the car for a while and then lost it. On December 15th, Scully and Cronenwett were patrolling with a state officer named Peterson. On this day they saw that same car. They followed the car and ended up stopping it 16 miles outside of Grand Rapids. They searched the car and found 68 bottles of alcohol. When the defendants were arrested Carroll pulled out a wad of cash to bribe the officers. QUESTION: Is suspicion from past encounters enough to pull some one over for a search? YES OPINION: Taft, C.J. 1. There is to be no alcohol transported because of the Prohibition Act 2. There is a difference between searching a home and an automobile 3. There is a right to free passage on the highways unless there is probable cause for believing that the vehicle contains contraband 4. The officer needs a warrant a. If he does not have one then he needs probable cause 5. Judgment is affirmed DISSENT: MCREYNOLDS, J. 1. We cannot take things unlawfully 2. There was no reason to arrest them a. The search was also unauthorized and should not have been done 3. The only suspicion was the three cases of whisky incident and it was never delivered a. This does not give them the right to arrest on mere suspicion, and little at that 4. Judgment should be reversed...