Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Giacolone v. United States

Giacolone v. United States, 13 F.2d 110 (9th Cir. 1926)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1926-06-07
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The only question presented by the present writ of error, and not disposed of in Giacolone v. United States, *111 13 F.(2d) 108, just decided, is the validity of a search without a warrant. Without going into details, it appears from the testimony that, when the federal agents approached the building which was used by the plaintiff in error as a distillery, he met them at the door and invited them in. Under these facts, we think the court court below was justified in finding that the plaintiff in error consented to the search, whether the officers were technically trespassers or not, and, having consented, is in no position to now claim that his constitutional rights were invaded.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Giacolone v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions
GIACOLONE v. UNITED STATES,13 F.2d 110(9th Cir. 1926)
GIACOLONE v. UNITED STATES.
No. 4767.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 7, 1926.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Western District of Washington; Edward E. Cushman, Judge.

Criminal prosecution by the United States against Jim Giacolone. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
S.A. Gagliardi, Charles T. Peterson, and Charles O. Bates, all of Tacoma, Wash., for plaintiff in error.

Thos. P. Revelle, U.S. Atty., and Arthur E. Simon, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., and Carroll A. Gordon, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Tacoma, Wash.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The only question presented by the present writ of error, and not disposed of in Giacolone v. United States,Page 11113 F.2d 108, just decided, is the validity of a search without a warrant.

Without going into details, it appears from the testimony that, when the federal agents approached the building which was used by the plaintiff in error as a distillery, he met them at the door and invited them in. Under these facts, we think the court court below was justified in finding that the plaintiff in error consented to the search, whether the officers were technically trespassers or not, and, having consented, is in no position to now claim that his constitutional rights were invaded. Waxman v. United States 12 F.2d 775, decided May 17, 1926.

The judgment is affirmed.