Agnello v. U.S Case Brief

Agnello v. U.S., 269 U.S. 20, 46 S. Ct. 4 (1925)

FACTS: Napolitano and Dispenza were employed as undercover agents by the federal Revenue Agents, for the purpose of narcotics investigation. On January 14, 1922, they went to Alba’s home to purchase narcotics. Alba gave them some samples, and the arranged to return in a few days. Revenue agents and city police followed and remained outside. Napolitano and Dispenza were asked to go to the home of another individual, Centorino, to pick up the promised drugs, they refused. Centorino proceeded to his house, followed by some of the agents. Centorino first went to his own house, then to a grocery store owned by the Agnellos (Pace and Thomas). The Agnellos used part of the store as a residence. The Agnellos and Centorino returned to Alba’s house. Agnello handed a number of small packages to Napolitano and money was paid to Alba. When the transaction was concluded, the agents rushed in and arrested all of the parties.

While this was going on, other officers went to Centorino’s home, searched it and found nothing. They then searched the Agnello home and found a can of cocaine. This evidence was excluded for failure to obtain a warrant. The various defendants pointed fingers at each other, with Agnello denying knowledge that the packages he had delivered contained cocaine. The can of cocaine found at his home was introduced to rebut that statement , and the government allowed the introduction, despite having refused to allow the introduction of the cocaine previously.

Agnello (and others) was convicted of selling cocaine without registering with Revenue and without paying the required tax. (The sale of cocaine under those circumstances was otherwise legal at that time.)

The State argued that the cocaine was seized incident to Agnello’s arrest.

ISSUE: Can search incident to arrest extend to a residence that is not where the arrest was effected?

HOLDING: No.

DISCUSSION: The Court discussed the scope of search incident to arrest. The Courta concluded that searches of persons at the time of arrest “naturally and usually appertain to and attend such arrests.” The Court stated that “[t]he search of a private dwelling without a warrant is in itself unreasonable and abhorrent to our laws. However, the Court limited its decision only to the arrest of Agnello, holding that the other defendants could stand, as the can of cocaine was only attributed to Agnello.