Dumbra v. United States

Background

A grocery at 514 East 16th Street and the adjoining winery at 512 were searched after a judge issued a warrant to seize any intoxicating liquor allegedly possessed in violation of the National Prohibition Act. Execution of the warrant recovered 74 bottles from the grocery and 50 barrels from the winery. The winery operators held a Treasury permit to manufacture and sell wine for non-beverage purposes, were subject to inspection, and could keep up to 100,000 gallons under the permit. They moved to quash the warrant for the winery premises and to recover the seized barrels, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and the serving officer lacked authority.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the affidavit presented to the judge supplied probable cause. The affidavit described undercover purchases where a prohibition agent saw the owner’s son go from the grocery toward the winery, return with wine, deliver it to the agent on two occasions, and the agent tasted wine that contained more than one-half of one percent alcohol; no sacramental papers were shown. The Court relied on the statute and prior decisions holding prohibition agents may serve warrants and that a warrant is proper if the facts would lead a reasonably cautious person to believe the law was being violated. The Court concluded those facts established probable cause and that the permit did not protect wine possessed for unlawful sale.

Real world impact

The Court held the prohibition agent was authorized to serve the warrant and that the affidavit supported probable cause, so the search and seizure were lawful and the district court’s denial to quash was affirmed. The opinion did not decide the later civil forfeiture contest on its merits, so condemnation and ownership issues remain for further proceedings.