U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1922

Kirkley v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 20, 1922 · Waddill, Woods

283 F. 34; 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2232

Counsel

C. T. Graydon, of Columbia, S. C., for plaintiff in error., G. L. B. Rivers, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Charleston, S. C. (Francis H. Weston, U. S. Atty., of Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

McIntyre v. State (Ga. 1940)
Schroeder v. United States (2d Cir. 1925)
Park v. United States (1st Cir. 1924)
In re Schuetze (District Court, W.D. New York 1924)
Thomas v. United States (4th Cir. 1923)
Agnello v. United States (2d Cir. 1923)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

The defendant, Charlie Kirkley, was convicted of having in his possession and transporting intoxicating liquor, and of having in his possession property used in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. The evidence against him was the finding of a bottle of whisky in his house and a still about 400 yards off by the sheriff of Chesterfield county, in the execution of a search warrant issued by a magistrate. The warrant was not produced, but the evidence tended to show that the affidavit on which it was issued did not set forth “the sources of information, the facts and grounds of belief, upon which the affiant bases his belief,” as seems to he required by the South Carolina statute (Cr. Code 1912, § 836).

*35Assuming the invalidity of the search warrant under which the sheriff found the whisky and still, we think the District Court was nevertheless right in refusing to strike out the evidence and in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal; The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States does not protect a citizen from unreasonable searches, except those made or participated in by federal officers or under federal process. The case is controlled by the case of Kanellos v. United States (C. C. A.) 282 Fed. 461, herewith filed.

Affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion

WADDILL, Circuit Judge.

I dissent, for the reasons given in dissenting opinion this day filed in the case of Kanellos v. United States,

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.