United States v. Charles Isaac Benson, United States of Am. v. Willie Bedford Benson, 299 F.2d 45 (6th Cir. 1962). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Charles Isaac Benson, United States of Am. v. Willie Bedford Benson, 299 F.2d 45 (6th Cir. 1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. French (okwd, 1976-05-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. French
W.D. Okla. · 1976 · confidence medium
In United States v. Benson, 299 F.2d 45, 46 (CA6 1962) the court in deciding that observations made by ATF agents constituted legal grounds for obtaining a search warrant said: “This issue was submitted to the district judge who found that the officers were not within the curtilage at the time they made their observations.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hartsell
E.D. Tenn. · 1968 · confidence medium
Hester v. United States (1924), 265 U.S. 57, 59 , 44 S.Ct. 445 , 68 L.Ed. 898, 900 (headnote 2); United States v. Benson, C.A.6th (1962), 299 F.2d 45, 46 (with reference to an island); United States v. Whitmore, C.A.6th (1965), 345 F.2d 28, 29 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Halko
Del. Super. Ct. · 1962 · confidence medium
See Feguer v. United States, 302 F. 2d 214 , at page 249 (8th Cir., 1962); Monnette v. United States, 299 F. 2d 847, 850 (5th Cir., 1962); United States v. Benson, 299 F. 2d 45, 46 (6th Cir., 1962); Foster v. United States, 296 F. 2d 65, 67 (5th Cir., 1962).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Johnnie James Young and Gene O'Neal
4th Cir. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Benson, 6 Cir., 299 F.2d 45 ; United States v. Sims, E.D.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Sims
E.D. Tenn. · 1962 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Benson (C.A. 6, Feb. 14, 1962) (No. 14,695) 299 F.2d 45 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. William O. Whitmore and John Anderson
6th Cir. · 1965 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Benson, 299 F.2d 45, 46 (CA6, 1962).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Charles Isaac BENSON, Defendant-Appellant; UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Bedford BENSON, Defendant-Appellant
14695-14696.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 14, 1962.
299 F.2d 45
John F. Dugger, Morristown, Tenn. (James M. Meek, Knoxville, Tenn., on the brief), for defendant-appellant., John H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn. (William P. Crewe, Asst. Regional Counsel, Int. Rev. Service, Atlanta, Ga., .on the brief) for plaintiffappellee.
McALLISTER, Miller, Per Curiam, Weick.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellants were charged in a five-count indictment with possession of an' unregistered still, carrying on the business of a distillery without giving bond, working at an unregistered and unbonded distillery, making mash and possession of nontaxpaid whiskey.

They filed a motion to suppress the evi-' dence alleged to have been obtained by reason'of an unlawful search conducted on premises of Charles Isaac Benson, This motion was denied by the court.

Charles Isaac Benson waived a jury and was tried by the court. Willie was tried by a jury and was found guilty on all five counts of the indictment. Charles was found guilty by the court only on Count 5 and was acquitted on the other counts of the indictment.

Officers of the Alcohol and Tobacco-Tax Division searched the premises and residence of Charles under the authority of a search warrant and seized 87% gallons of nontaxpaid whiskey otherwise described as “moonshine” and also distilling equipment. They arrested the appellants.

The principal claim here is that these officers obtained the information upon which their affidavits for the search warrant was based, at least in part, by trespassing upon the curtilage of Charles- and observing the operation of the still and, therefore, the search and seizure was illegal.

This issue was submitted to the District Judge who found that the officers were not within the curtilage at the time they made their observations. They were within an area described as an island which was separated from Charles’' residence by a creek three or four yards in width. On this island was an old hog pen, car body and an outhouse. There was no proof that Charles owned the island. In our judgment, it could not be considered part of the curtilage if he did. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898; United States v. Potts, 297 F.2d 68 (CA 6, 1961); Ramsey v. United States, 27S F.2d 368 (CA 6); Hodges v. United States, 243 F.2d 281 (CA 5). We think this finding was amply supported by the evidence.

We find no prejudicial error in the introduction of evidence against Willie Benson or in the cross-examination of him by the District Attorney. In our judgment, the convictions were supported by substantial evidence.

, The judgments of conviction are affirmed.