-
192 U.S. 585 Supreme Court February 23, 1904 No. 504
If the search warrant were illegal, or if the officer serving the warrant exceeded his authority,' the party on whose complaint the warrant issued, or the officer, would be responsible-for the wrong done; but this is no good reason
In that case a police officer, armed with a search warrant calling for a search for intoxicating liquors upon the premises of the defendant’s husband, took two letters which he found at the time.
under a warrant to search her husband’s premises for intoxicating liquors.
-
201 U.S. 43 Supreme Court March 12, 1906 No. 340
Car.), 526; State v. Thomas, 98 N. Car. 599. The case of United States v. Saline Bank, 1 Pet. 100 , is not in conflict with this.
Nothing can be more direct and plain; nothing more expressive to distinguish a subpoena from a search warrant. Can a subpoena lose this essential distinction from a search warrant by the generality or speciality of its terms?
I have already pointed out the essential distinction between a subpoena duces tecum and a search warrant, and, it may be, the case at bar demands from me no expression of opinion of the Fourth Amendment.
-
191 U.S. 64 Supreme Court November 2, 1903 No. 26
Shortly after passing Goodwin, McDade was missed from the train, and upon search being instituted, his lantern was found near the qc}ace on the car where he -$-as at the time of giving the-signal.
Be this as it may, the testimony makes it clear that in the proper construction of this appliance'there is' no necessity of bringing it so near to the car as to endanger brakemen working thereon.
In other words, if he knows of a defect, or it is so plainly observable that he may be presumed to know of it, and continues in the.master’s employ without objection, he is taken to have made his election to continue in the employ
-
196 U.S. 217 Supreme Court January 9, 1905 No. 100
without discovering the defect the company was rendered liable to him for the damage sustained.
He may recover from the party whose wrongful act has thus exposed him. In such cases the parties are not in pari delicto as to each other, though as to third persons either may be held liable.”
But in the present case the omission- of duty for which the railroad company was sought to bé held was the failure to inspect the car with such reasonable diligence as would have discovered the defect in it. ' It may be conceded that
-
210 U.S. 281 Supreme Court May 18, 1908 No. 201
loaded car.
The error of the charge was emphasized by the refusal to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, “that when one car is fully loaded and another car in the same train is only partially loaded, the law allows a variation of
full three inches between the center of the draw bars of such cars, without regard to the amount of weight in the partially loaded car.”
-
198 U.S. 45 Supreme Court April 17, 1905 No. 292
Under that provision no State can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
There must be more than the mere fact of the possible existence-'of. some small amount of unhealthiness to warrant legislative interference with liberty.
valid as health laws, enacted under the police power.
-
84 N.E. 129 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court February 26, 1908
in question reached the cross-over, and so near to the outward bound track as to warrant a finding that it was negligence for the defendant’s motorman to cross.
A police officer testified that he took the plaintiff in the first case, Mrs. Lindenbaum, in an ambulance to the relief station of the city hospital.
She was brought in by police ambulance, station one; 40 yrs of age and married.” This yellow paper was admitted without objection.
-
196 U.S. 1 Supreme Court December 19, 1904 Nos. 32, 87
This case was brought here on certiorari, and also on writ of error, and will be determined on the merits, without discussing the question of jurisdiction as between the one writ and the other. Pullman’s Car Company v.
That any employé of any such common carrier who may be injured by any locomotive, car, or train in use contrary to the provision .of this act shall not be deemed thereby to have assumed the risk thereby occasioned, although continuing
The distinction between merchandise which may become an article of interstate commerce, or may not, and an instrument regularly used in moving interstate commerce, which has stopped temporarily in máking its trip between two points
-
213 U.S. 151 Supreme Court April 5, 1909 No. 625
find warrant in the Constitution and laws of the United States.” .
Car. 316.
Car. 316. We could not therefore sustain the exercise of jurisdiction by the Circuit Court without in effect deciding that the State can- be compelled by compulsory judicial process to perform a contract obligation.
-
209 U.S. 349 Supreme Court April 6, 1908 No. 184Cited by 399 Overruled
For instance, the police power may limit the height of buildings, ill a city, without compensation. To that extent it cuts down what otherwise would be the rights of property.
On this principle of public interest and the police power, and not merely as the inheritor of a royal prerogative, the State may make laws for the preservation of game, which seems a stronger case. Geer v.
Whether it be said that such an interest justifies the cutting down by statute, without compensation, in the exercise of the police power, of what otherwise would be private rights'of . property, or that apart from statute those rights
-
93 N.W. 1107 Wisconsin Supreme Court March 21, 1903
Supp. 674, 679 , an arresting officer was permitted to testify to condition of the underclothing of one accused of rape, ascertained by police search of his person on arrest. In State v. Graham, 74 N.
It is well settled that, when one charged with an offense is arrested, the officers may, without further legal procedure, seize weapons with which the crime has been committed, property which has been obtained by means of a criminal
And the officer mailing such search may testify as to any facts, even though criminating, which were discovered thereby.”
-
65 L.R.A. 519 Supreme Court of Iowa March 16, 1904
Vlkat the appellees did sear.ch the house aud premises of the plaintiff for the discovery of alleged stolen property, and that such search was'made without any ''variant issued for that purpose, was not denied 011 the trial below,
Even with a warrant, the law of this state forbids a search in the nighttime, save upon a showing therefor, and upon special authority expressed in the writ. Code, section 5555.
In mitigation of such damages, only, evidence may be received of any fact which fairly and reasonably tends to show that the act, was done in good faith and without malice.
-
201 U.S. 321 Supreme Court April 2, 1906 No. 198
That, notwithstanding the exclusive nature of' this power, the States may, in the exercise of their police power, maké reasonable rules with regard to the methods of carrying on interstate business; the precautions that shall be used
Although it may be admitted that the statute is not far from the line of proper police regulation, we think that sufficient allowance is not made for the practical difficulties in the administration of the law, and that, as applied
without such deposit.
-
207 U.S. 20 Supreme Court October 21, 1907 No. 115
Finally1 it is objected that the appellee had a complete and adequate remedy at law by paying the amount of the warrant, and then suing the collector to recover the same back- as money paid under duress, although'upon a void warrant
Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 658 ; Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339 . In the cases in 139 U.
We all agree, I suppose, that it is only in most exceptional cases that a State can. be said to deprive a person of his property without due’ process of law merely because of the decision of a court without more.
-
53 S.E. 814 Supreme Court of Georgia March 22, 1906
We had no warrant for Mr. Duren, or any other authority to search his place of business or seize his goods, except the order of the mayor over the ’phone. We did not arrest him before the search was made.”
of said police court the day said order was issued), for the' express purpose of procuring testimony upon which to found the, charge -against petitioner and upon which to subsequently try and convict him; and upon the further ground
But if his person or belongings are searched by another, although without a vestigd of authority, the evidence thus discovered may be used against him. Williams v. State, supra.
-
90 P. 986 Idaho Supreme Court June 6, 1907
the police power.
Section 5 of the act provides that the officer who shall have charge of the execution of any warrant issued under section 4 thereof shall have all powers granted in eases of search-warrants.
Appellants contend that under the foregoing provision of the constitution no search-warrant can be issued except upon affidavit of probable cause.
-
83 N.E. 41 New York Court of Appeals December 20, 1907
arrested was the offender; the arrest being made in good faith and without evil design.
The Code of Criminal Procedure (sec. 177) provides that a policeman or other peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for a crime committed or attempted in his presence.
Her detention in the police station would also be warranted by the admission.
-
64 A. 121 Supreme Court of New Jersey June 18, 1906
No justification then appeared; the officer was without a warrant, as far as we know. lie seems to have been also without reasonable grounds to believe that a felony had been committed, for after the search of the plaintiff's person
But even if the case had been such that the officer would have been justified in arresting without a warrant, wo think he was not justified in compelling the plaintiff to strip naked.
Whether he would have been justified in carrying a search of the person to that point if he had had a warrant is a question not presented.
-
180 U.S. 452 Supreme Court March 5, 1901 No. 116
such license shall be deemed a misdemeanor to be punished as hereinafter provided, and any attempt to operate such elevator or warehouse in violation of law and without having the license herein .prescribed, may upon complaint of
Section 2 provides that any person attempting to run such an elevator or warehouse without a license may be enjoined in a suit for that purpose.
the defendant company; that such provision may stand alone; and. that its validity may be determined without reference to other provisions of the statute.
-
104 N.W. 149 Wisconsin Supreme Court May 2, 1905
The charter gives no express authority to authorize arrest without warrant.
It is the general rule of the common law that no arrest can be made without a warrant except in certain cases where the ends of justice would be defeated without it.
The authority conferred upon the common council óf the city of Oshkosh to arrest, fine, and imprison clearly means according to existing laws, and the common council therefore could authorize its police officers to arrest without warrant
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.