Case ID: f2d_13/html/0110-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GIACOLONE v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    June 7, 1926.)
    No. 4767.
    Searches and seizures Search of building without warrant, hut by invitation of" owner, not illegal.
    A- defendant -cannot claim -invasion of his constitutional rights by search of his building without a warrant by prohibition agents, where they. entered the building on his invitation.
    In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Western District of Washington; Edward E. Cushman, Judge.
    Criminal, prosecution by the United States against Jim Giaeolone. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    S. A. Gagliardi, Charles T. Peterson, and Charles O. Bates,,all of Tacoma, Wash.; for plaintiff- in -error.
    ■ Thos. P, Revelle, U.- S. Átty., and Arthur E.- Simon, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., and Carroll A. Gordon, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Tacoma, Wash.
    Before' GILBERT, HUNT, and RUD-KIN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The only question presented by the present writ of error, and not disposed of in Giacolone v. United States, 13 F.(2d) 108, just decided, is the validity of a search without a warrant.

Without going into details, it appears from the testimony that, when the federal agents approached the building which was used by the plaintiff in error as a distillery, he met them at the door and invited them in. Under these facts, we think the court court below was justified in finding that the plaintiff in error consented to the search, whether the officers were technically trespassers or not, and, having consented, is in no position to now claim that his constitutional rights were invaded. Waxman v. United States 12 F.(2d) 775, decided May 17, 1926.

The judgment is affirmed.