Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Dodge v. United States
272 U.S. 530
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1926-11-23
- Topic
- general
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a proceeding in the District Court of the United States' for the condemnation of the motor boat “Ray of Block Island.” The owners appeared as claimants and moved that the libel be dismissed on the ground that the facts alleged did not warrant a condemnation. The District Court granted the motion. . 7 F. (2d) 189. *531 The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decree. 11 F.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dodge v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 109 opinions
Headnotes
- White Collar & Regulatory Defense — Seizure by Unauthorized Person A proceeding to forfeit property under the National Prohibition Act may be maintained notwithstanding that the initial seizure was made by a person not authorized to seize under the statute, because the Government's subsequent adoption of the seizure operates retroactively and is as valid as a seizure originally authorized; the owner suffers nothing he would not have suffered had the seizure been authorized, since the object is in either case brought within the power of the court. 272 U.S. at 531–532
- Admiralty & Maritime Law — In Rem Jurisdiction In a libel to forfeit a vessel, the court's jurisdiction is secured by the fact that the res was in the possession of the prohibition director when the libel was filed. 272 U.S. at 532
- Constitutional Law — Fourth Amendment The exclusion of evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure rests on a different ground from the forfeiture principles: where the search and seizure are unlawful as invading personal rights secured by the Constitution, those rights would be infringed yet further if the evidence were allowed to be used. 272 U.S. at 532
DODGEv. UNITED STATES,272 U.S. 530(1926)
47 S.Ct. 191
DODGEv. UNITED STATES.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 341.
Argued October 27, 1926.
Decided November 23, 1926.
CERTIORARI (271 U.S. 655) to a judgment of the Circuit Court
of Appeals which reversed a judgment of the District Court
(7 F.2d 189) dismissing a libel brought by the United States to
forfeit a motor boat, under § 26 of the National Prohibition Act.
The libel was brought under the National Prohibition Act; October 28, 1919, c. 85, Title II, § 26, 41 So. 305, 315. It alleged that police officers of the City of Providence, Rhode Island, discovered a man named, seemingly one of the claimants, in the act of transporting contrary to said law intoxicating liquors in the "Ray of Block Island," over navigable waters of the United States; that the officers seized the liquors and the boat and arrested the man; that he subsequently was arrested by officers of the United States, was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquors in violation of said law and was fined; that the motor boat was now in custody of a federal prohibition director for the District of Rhode Island; and that by reason of the premises the motor boat was subject to condemnation and sale. The ground on which the libel was dismissed by the District Court was that the language of § 26, making it the duty of "the Commissioner, his assistants, inspectors, or any officer of the law" to seize the liquor and vehicle, did not extend to the police officers of the City, who had no authority from the State to take these steps. It is stated in argument and perhaps fairly might be assumed, if we thought it important, that when the vessel was handed over to the prohibition director the liquor was no longer aboard and that the man arrested was not present at the scene. SeeUnited Statesv.One Red Motor Truck,6 F.2d 412. The Circuit Court of Appeals while agreeing with the above construction of § 26 held that the Government might adopt the seizure and give it retroactive effect. This is in accord withUnited Statesv.Story, 294 F. 517, (Fifth Circuit) but contrary toUnited Statesv.Loomis, 297 F. 359 (Ninth Circuit); this last decision being considerablyPage 532qualified, however, by the same Court in the later case ofUnited Statesv.One Studebaker Seven-Passenger Sedan,4 F.2d 534.
The Circuit Court of Appeals relied on the often quoted language of Mr. Justice Story inThe Caledonian, 4 Wheat. 100, to the effect that anyone may seize any property for a forfeiture to the Government, and that if the Government adopts the act and proceeds to enforce the forfeiture by legal process, this is of no less validity than when the seizure is by authority originally given. The statement is repeated by the same judge inWoodv.United States, 16 Pet. 342, 359, andTaylorv.UnitedStates, 3 How. 197. See alsoGelstonv.Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246, 310. The owner of the property suffers nothing that he would not have suffered if the seizure had been authorized. However effected, it brings the object within the power of the Court, which is an end that the law seeks to attain, and justice to the owner is as safe in the one case as in the other. The jurisdiction of the Court was secured by the fact that thereswas in the possession of the prohibition director when the libel was filed.The Richmond, 9 Cr. 102.The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391, 403.The Underwriter,13 F.2d 433,434. We can see no reason for doubting the soundness of these principles when the forfeiture is dependent upon subsequent events any more than when it occurs at the time of the seizure, although it was argued that there was a difference. They seem to us to embody good sense. The exclusion of evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure stand on a different ground. If the search and seizure are unlawful as invading personal rights secured by the Constitution those rights would be infringed yet further if the evidence were allowed to be used. The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.Decree affirmed.Page 533