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

Maldonado v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided November 24, 1922 · Bryan

284 F. 853; 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2483

Counsel

George M. Thurmond, of San Antonio, Tex., and C. C. Belcher, of Del Rio, Tex., for plaintiff in error., John D. Hartman, U. S. Atty., of San Antonio, Tex. (W. C. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., of San Antonio, Tex., on the brief), for the United States.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Barrios Cano (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1951)
El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Barrios Cano (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1951)
Thompson v. United States (7th Cir. 1926)
Raine v. States (9th Cir. 1924)

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

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff in error was convicted upori an indictment charging him with the possession and the transportation of intoxicating liquor, in violation of the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305).

*854There is no question of his guilt. When arrested, he had the liquor in his possession, and was in the act of transporting it in an automobile. No evidence was submitted for the defense, and the prima facie presumption of unlawful possession and transportation arose under title 2, section 33, of the National Prohibition Act.

The officers who made the arrest did so upon information that plaintiff in error was in the act of violating the law. They had no search warrant. However, plaintiff in error, in response to a question, stated to them that he had intoxicating liquor in the automobile, and gave his permission to search it. Thereupon the liquor was found and seized, and used as evidence at the trial.

The sole question sought to be raised upon this writ of error is whether the search and seizure without a warrant were reasonable. We do not think that question is fairly raised, in view of the fact that what was done was with the consent of plaintiff in error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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