Court Opinion

ID: 9300396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:06:51.421796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:39.759987
License: Public Domain

WOODS, Circuit Judge.
The first ground of demurrer is clearly untenable. The offense charged is not the removal, nor concealment, nor keeping of distilled spirits contrary to law, but the obstructing of an internal revenue officer in the discharge of his duty. The distilled spirits may be kept by one person in his own building, and yet another person may obstruct or hinder the officer when he attempts to enter such building for the purpose of examining the spirits. The latter would clearly be amenable to the law, though he owned neither the building nor the spirits, and did not make, produce or keep them. To keep or conceal illicit spirits is one offense, to obstruct or hinder an officer from entering a building where illicit spirits are kept, is a distinct and different one. It is the latter which the pleader has attempted to charge in this indictment.
The second ground of demurrer is, we think, well taken An indictment for obstructing or hindering an officer should show the authority under which the officer is acting. It is no offense to resist or obstruct an officer who is acting without authority or who is exceeding his authority. The pleader seems to have known the rule, and has made an attempt t.o conform to it. In this, we think, he has failed. There is-no pretense that the officer was acting by virtue of any search-warrant or any other legal process. The theory of the prosecution seems to be that, under section 3177 of the Revised Statutes, the internal revenue *1055officer may enter without process any building where distilled spirits subject to tax are made, produced or kept, so far as it may be necessary for examining the same; and that under section 3453, he may also, without process, seize illicit distilled spirits. This is true, but the authority exists only where the circumstances prescribed by these sections exist. The officer has the authority in the case pointed out by the statute, and in no other. To show his authority, it must appear that such a state of facts existed as are contemplated by the statute. By section 3177 the internal revenue officers are authorized in the day time or in the night, when the premises are open, to enter any building where any articles subject to tax are made, produced or kept, so far as it may be necessary for the purpose of examining said articles.
There is no averment in the indictment that the attempt to enter the smoke-house of the defendant and examine said distilled spirits was made in the day time, or made at night when the premises were open, nor that said distilled spirits were made, produced or kept on said premises, or that such entry was necessary for the purpose of examining said spirits. It does not appear, therefore, from the indictment, that the officer had authority to make a search or to enter the premises of defendant; and it does not appear that it was unlawful for the defendant to resist the officer in making such entry and search. If, for instance, the officer had attempted to enter the premises in the night season, when' the door was shut, the defendant would have had the right to resist him, and would violate no law in so doing. Section 3453, Kev. St., authorizes the seizure of taxable articles by the internal revenue officers “which shall be found in the possession or custody, or within the control of any person, for the purpose of being sold or removed by him in fraud of the internal revenue laws, or with the design to avoid the payment of the taxes thereon.” There is no averment in the indictment that the distilled spirits therein mentioned were in the custody of any one for any of the purposes mentioned in the section just quoted. The authority of the revenue officers to seize is, therefore, not averred, and it does not appear from the indictment that the defendant was guilty of any offense in obstructing or hindering such seizure.
As to both the attempted examination and seizure, from all that appears in the indictment the officer seems to have been a trespasser who might be lawfully obstructed and resisted. The right of resistance to illegal official action is essential not merely to all free government, but to any government whatsoever. All citizens of the United States are guarantied by the constitution security in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The right to resist an unauthorized search or seizure is a direct consequence of this guaranty. In order, therefore, to show that defendant was guilty of an offense in resisting the search and seizure of the revenue officer, the authority of the latter should have been set out. This the indictment entirely fails to do. It is,, therefore, defective and bad, and the demurrer must be sustained.