Kenney v. United States
Cases that cite this one
38 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Savannah Hinton, United States of America v. Susie Powers, Alias Susie Pendleton (7th Cir. 1955)
- State v. Smith (S.D. 1984)
- United States v. Bernard Jerome Lee, A/K/A James Wesley Carter (4th Cir. 1976)
- People v. Estrada (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)
- United States v. La Monte (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1978)
- United States v. Dwight Edward Damitz, United States of America v. Harry Louis Varvil (9th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. James (D.C. Cir. 1974)
- Commonwealth v. Hall (Pa. 1973)
- United States v. Dana Hyrum M. Bolton (9th Cir. 1972)
- Sidney Harrison Moore v. United States of America, Reuben William Moore, Jr. v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Esters (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1972)
- United States v. Curwood (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1972)
- Aguilar v. Texas (District Court, S.D. Texas 1972)
- United States v. Charles J. Thornton (D.C. Cir. 1971)
- State v. Anselmo (La. 1971)
- United States v. Ketterman (D.C. 1971)
- The PEOPLE v. Stansberry (Ill. 1971)
- United States v. Moore (D.C. 1970)
- The People v. Bak (Ill. 1970)
- United States v. $3,216.59 in United States Currency (District Court, D. South Carolina 1967)
- United States v. Robert Sinclair Freeman (2d Cir. 1966)
- United States v. Poppitt (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1964)
- United States v. Gianaris (District Court, District of Columbia 1960)
- United States v. Schwartz (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1957)
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
By this appeal William C. Kenney challenges the validity of a search warrant, the execution of which yielded evidence leading to his conviction of operating a lottery and possessing materials therefor, in violation of §§ 1501 and 1502, Title 22, District of Columbia Code 1940. He seasonably moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the search on the ground that the search warrant did not properly describe the premises.
The warrant commanded the officers to search the “premises occupied by William C. Kenney and over which he has-possession and control * * * said premises being described as 2211 N Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.” The appellant contends that, as the house at 2211 N Street, N. W. contains two apartments, one on the second floor and one on the third, there was not sufficient particularity of description in the warrant to give it validity. The argument overlooks the fact that, in addition to the street and number of the house, the search warrant described the place to be searched as the “premises occupied by William C. Kenney and over which he has possession and control.” The only place searched was the apartment occupied by the appellant. Under practically identical circumstances we held valid the search warrant involved in Shore et al. v. United States. 1
Kenney also complains of the lower court’s refusal to permit inquiry into the truthfulness of an affidavit upon which was based a warrant of arrest for Kenney which the officers had at the time of the search. It is sufficient that the affidavit showed probable cause at the time the warrant was issued.
The appellant’s final contention that a verdict of acquittal should have been directed cannot be sustained, as the record contains ample evidence to justify the trial court in submitting the case to the jury.
Affirmed.
60 App.D.C. 137, 139, 49 F.2d 519, certiorari denied 283 U.S. 865, 51 S.Ct. 656, 75 L.Ed. 1469.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.