Legal Opinion

United States v. Shultz

District Court, D. Arizona

Decided April 11, 1933No. C-6512, C-6469, C-6518, C-6494, C-6489PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SAMES, District Judge.

In each of these cases the prohibition officers, without permission and without search warrants, entered private dwellings and seized apparatus and materials for the distillation of alcoholic liquors.

In the Shultz case, the officers, while on a public street and on a vacant lot, detected odors- of mash from the defendant’s premises. After he entered his basement, the odor became more pronounced, and to quote one of the officers: “We decided to go in and find out if there was not a violation of the law there, and so we went in, and this mash was on the floor.” Mr. Shultz…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Agnello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Hester v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Amos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  5. Taylor v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Leubbert v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
  2. Genasys Inc. v. Vector Acoustics, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2022
  3. United States v. RahoDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API