Case Name: UNITED STATES v. HILL
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1920-02-19
Citations: 263 F. 812
Docket Number: No. 1655
Parties: UNITED STATES v. HILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 263
Pages: 812–812

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. HILL.
(District Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D.
February 19, 1920.)
No. 1655.
1. Searches and seizures <@==>3 — Scope oe search warrant.
A search warrant for the search of a house for narcotic drugs held not to authorize seizure of a letter found therein.
2. Criminal law <§=»395 — Letter illegally seized not admissible in evidence.
A letter illegally seized from defendant’s possession held not admissible in evidence against him.
Criminal prosecution by the United States against William Hill. On motion for new trial.
Granted.
Allen C. Roudebush, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Cincinnati, Ohio.
A. Lee Beatty and J. E. Rappaport, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant.

Opinion:
PECK, District Judge.
On motion for a new trial.
It appearing, upon inspection, that the description in the search warrant contained of the things to be seized thereunder did not embrace any papers or documents of the defendant, and that therefore it was not broad enough to include the letter from Alonzo Taylor to the defendant, dated April 14, 1919, the defendant was, on his petition heretofore filed herein, entitled to a return of the said letter, and an order may be so taken. Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1177; U. S. v. Friedberg (D. C.) 233 Fed. 313; State v. Slamon, 73 Vt. 212, 50 Atl. 1097, 87 Am. St. Rep. 711.
And it further appearing that the said letter was improperly admitted in evidence against the defendant's exception, and that the same was prejudicial to the defendant, the verdict will be set aside, and a new trial of this cause granted.