Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-11-03
Kitchen of Groce Restaurant,
Where Liquor Was Seized,
Ruled Designed for Public.
DAYTIME INVASION
BY 4 POLICE LEGAL
Padlocking of Glassman Garages
Affirmed in Ruling by
Van 0rsdel.

warrantless raid was upheld today
by the District Court of Appeals, in an
opinion by Chief Justice George e.
Martin. 1t was concurred in by Justice
Charles H. Robb and by Alfred A.
Wheat, chief justice OF the District
Supreme Court, who sat as q member
OF the appellate tribunal in the absence
OF Justice Van Orsdel.
The court affirmed the action of the
Police Court, which had held legal n
seizure of liquor by prohibition agents
In the kitchen Of restaurant operated
by Enos Groce In the basement ana
first floor Of five-story building. At
the rear OF the basement room was O
small connecting room, which led to the
Kitchen; there was a table, but no
chairs In this room. A stairway led
from the room to the upper floor,
Groces attorney said the restaurant
was located at 1905 H street.
-Four policemen, who were also pro.
hibit1on officers, visited the premises
IN the daytime for the purpose Of ascer.
tanning whether intoxicating liquor was
being kept there in violation of the
national prohibition act. They had no
search warrant. One of them went
into the basement restaurant by the
street entrance and found no one In
there at the time. He then went into
the small room in the rear and walked
to the kitchen door, which was open,
and from there looked into the kitchen.
He saw four bottles Of corn whisky In
the kitchen, which he seized and placed
on the table in the connecting room.
Claimed as Private.
The proprietor appeared and claimed
the liquor was kept for his private use.
While the defendant and the oficer
were in the small room a man entered
and asked Groce for a "high-ball,"
throwing 50-cent piece on the table.
Groce, the opinion says, looked at tna
man kind of funny and after a while
the customer changed his order to
ginger ale, which he drank and left
the premises. The policeman took pos.
session OF the liquor and arrested the
defendant.
In our opinion" said Chief Justice
Martin, 1.-The seizure and arrest were
Justified by the facts this disclosed.
The basement restaurant was a room de-
signed for public use. and the same Is
true OF the small connecting room. This
fact appears from the free public &C.
cess to the room, from the presence OF
a table and from the conduct Of q
patron who treated 1t as a public room
in the presence of the defendant with
an order for high-ball. It therefore
appears that while the officer was
standing in a public place he saw the
bottles of liquor in the kitchen, to
which he had access through the open
kitchen door. In these circumstances
ne was authorized to seize the liquor
without search warrant"
The court points out that law officers
could make arrests for crimes committed
In their presence, and without a search
warrant could seize the instrument of
the crime, and the fourth amendment
to the Constitution forbidding unreal
sonable search and seizure is to be con-
strued In conformity to the principles Of
the common law. This was held in the
case of Vachina VS.. United States in
the Circuit Court Of Appeals for the
ninth circuit.
Padlocking Is Upheld.
The Court of Appeals in another
decision today by Justice Josiah H, Van
Orsdel held that the action of Justice
Wendell Phillips Stafford of the Dis
trtct Supreme Court in padlocking for
one year two garages at 2101 Fourteenth
street and l419 L street, occupied by
Herbert Glassman and owned respec.
lively by Francis w. HILL ST., and Harry
Sherby, was not arbitrary but was ade.
quately sustained by the evidence. The
owners sought to give q bond against
future unlawful use, which was denied
and they appealed. Frequent violations
OF the national prohibition law were
Continued on Page 2, Column So