Summary

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Taylor v. United States (286 U.S. 1…

Prohibition officers may rely on a distinctive odor as a physical fact indicative of possible crime; but its presence alone does not strip the owner of a building of constitutional guaranties (Const. Amend. 4) against unreasonable search. This record does not make it necessary for us to discuss the rule in respect of searches in connection with an arrest. No offender was in the garage; the action of the agents had no immediate connection with an arrest. The purpose was to secure evidence to support some future arrest.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Taylor v. United States (286 U.S. 1…

Without undertaking to defend the challenged search and seizure, the Solicitor General submits the cause for our decision. As the conviction was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, he prefers not to enter a confession of error. He does, however, say that in his opinion, without regard to whether the garage constituted part of the private dwelling, upon the facts shown, the entry by the agents was wrongful and the search and seizure unreasonable. With this view we agree.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature