The case involved motions by defendants in a federal prosecution under the National Prohibition Law to suppress evidence seized from searches of their private dwellings pursuant to warrants based on affidavits describing the odor of fermenting mash. The court held that the warrants were valid on their face because the smell provided reasonable cause to infer illegal distilling activity, and that even if the warrants were defective under the statute's restrictions on dwelling searches, the officers could lawfully enter and seize evidence without a warrant upon detecting a crime in progress through their senses. The core reasoning was that officers are presumed to have acted in performance of their duty by arresting those found committing the offense on the premises, and any procedural defects in warrant service did not retroactively invalidate the search or require suppression of the evidence; the motions were therefore denied.

criminal lawprocedure