TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Queck v. Hawker

Queck v. Hawker, 282 F. 942 (W.D. Pa. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
November 15, 1922
Docket
No. 744
Judges
Thomson
Citations
282 F. 942

Opinion of the Court — Thomson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

THOMSON, District Judge.

This is a petition for the return of goods seized and held under search warrant issued by the United States commissioner, the application being based on the ground, among others, that the search warrant was illegally issued.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,. and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It will thus clearly appear that the existence of probable cause is a judicial conclusion to be found by the commissioner or judicial officer to whom application for the warrant is made. It is a vital and jurisdictional fact, and without such finding no search warrant can lawfully issue.

The finding of probable cause should be based, not on the opinion or belief of a witness or witnesses, but on facts set forth in the affidavit from which the existence of probable cause may be fairly inferred. Otherwise the conclusion would be that of the witness, and *943 not of the judicial officer in whom alone the Constitution has vested the extraordinary power to issue search warrants, and who is thus legally charged with the duty, of preventing unreasonable searches and seizures.

As the record does not show any finding of probable cause by the commissioner, we think the warrant fatally defective, and therefore the seizure thereunder illegal. Entertaining these views, the search warrant being invalid, the seizure Was necessarily illegal, and the goods seized thereunder are directed to he returned in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1923: 11924: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Owens259 S.W. 100 (Mo. 1924)
  2. United States v. Kaplan286 F. 963 (S.D. Ga. 1923)

Most recent

  1. State v. Owens259 S.W. 100 (Mo. 1924)
  2. United States v. Kaplan286 F. 963 (S.D. Ga. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list