United States Supreme Court Cases & Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1 (1927)

Albrecht v. United States

No. 9

Argued November 23, 1926

Decided January 3, 1927

273 U.S. 1

Syllabus

1. An arrest under a federal warrant based on affidavits verified before a notary public -- a state official without authority to administer oaths in federal criminal proceedings -- is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. P. 273 U. S. 5.

2. An information cannot be filed by a United States attorney with out leave of court. P. 273 U. S. 5.

3. The official oath of the United States Attorney may be accepted as sufficient verification of an information. P. 273 U. S. 6.

4. Where an information gave the court to understand and be informed etc., "on affidavits" referred to, the invalidity of the affidavits and their use with the information as a basis for applying for and issuing warrants of arrest did not affect the validity of the information. P. 273 U. S. 6.

5. Where the information is valid but the warrant of arrest is based on insufficiently verified affidavits, the irregularity of the warrant may be waived. P. 273 U. S. 8.

6. Mere giving of a bail bond without objection to the warrant does not waive invalidity of the warrant or operate as a general appearance. P. 273 U. S. 9.

7. Objection to arrest upon the ground that affidavits supporting the warrant are defective should be by motion to quash the warrant, not the information. P. 273 U. S. 9.

8. A motion to quash a warrant issued upon insufficiently verified affidavits is too late if the defendant is in court and the affidavits have been amended before the motion is filed. P. 273 U. S. 10.

Page 273 U. S. 2

9. Punishing the same person for the distinct offenses of possessing and then selling the same liquor in violation of the Prohibition Act is not double punishment violating the Fifth Amendment. P. 273 U. S. 11.

Affirmed.

Error to a judgment of the district court sentencing the plaintiffs in error upon each of nine counts of an information charging violations of the Prohibition Act.

Page 273 U. S. 3