Court Opinion

ID: 9642698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:06:47.736292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:51.224861
License: Public Domain

ROSS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I regret not to bo able to agree to tho judgment here given in this ease.
The testimony of tho defendant’s witness Enrico Besozzi undoubtedly tended to show that the premises where the liquors in question were kept and found constituted the home of Form’. If so, I do not know of any law that requires its owner to make Ms liquors therein bear evidence of the tax thereon having been paid, much less any law that holds such owner responsible for the failure of such officer to see such evidence.
The statement contained in the affidavit of the prohibition officer upon which the search warrant was based that from his inspection he had reason to believe that liquors in excess of one-half of 1 por cent, alcohol illegally acquired are stored and traded in from the garage is, it seems to me, simply a state» ment as to what he believes; besides which that inspection, according to his own evidence, was (if it be true that the garage was part of Forni’s home, as some of the evidence given on behalf of the defendant clearly tended to show) obtained by violating the sanctity of that home, contrary to the provisions of tho Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, for tho prohibition agent Rinekel expressly testified that he and two other prohibition agents first observed from another lot the liquor in the back shed and “climbed into the yard and saw into the basanent and saw the liquor piled up there, and went to the United States commissioner and got a search warrant and went back and seized tbe liquor.” lie had, in my opinion, no more right to “climb” over the inclosure of a residence than he would have had to break open its front door, and any evidence so obtained would, if the premises constituted the home of Fomi, be clearly inadmissible.
The record shows that the court refused to give either of the two following instructions requested by the defendant, to which action of the court exceptions were reserved:
“(1) If tho premises in question were used and occupied by tbe defendant as a private dwelling, to justify a verdict of guiliy you must find from the evidence either that it was’ being' used for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor or that it was used in part for some business purpose.”
“(2) The term ‘private dwelling’ includes the entire frame building in which the dweller resides as well as all buildings and outhouses situated within the common inclosure, provided that the same are used solely for the comfort and convenience of the dweller, and are not used for any business.” As has been aboye stated, the testimony of tho witness Besozzi clearly tended to show that the premises where the liquors wore kept and found constituted Forni’s home. Whether it was or not, and whether or not they were so kept for sale, were questions of fact for the exclusive determination of the jury. The mere fact that the quantity was large and suspiciously packed would not of itself make their possession illegal, for there is no provision of the National Prohibition Act to my knowledge (and certainly none has been called to our attention) wMeh places any limitation as to the quantity that tho owners of homes are authorized by that act to keep, possess, and consume.