O'Brien v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 1929 |
| Citation | 14 S.W.2d 51 |
| Parties | O'BRIEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Knox County; E. G. Stooksbury, Judge.
James O'Brien was convicted of violating the liquor law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Fred C. Houk, of Knoxville, for plaintiff in error.
W. F. Barry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Officers with a search warrant entered the premises of plaintiff in error and discovered there in his possession 8½ quarts of whisky. He was convicted upon the evidence thus found in his possession, and has appealed from the judgment rendered against him.
It is insisted that the conviction should be set aside because the evidence was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. No evidence was introduced by plaintiff in error, and if the evidence discovered by the search of his premises was legally obtained and therefore admissible, it supports the verdict.
The objection to its admissibility was that the affidavit failed to disclose probable cause, and that the warrant did not describe the premises to be searched; and that the search warrant was void for these defects. The affidavit was made upon knowledge and upon information received from a citizen well known to affiant and meets the requirements set forth in Jackson v. State, 153 Tenn. 441, 284 S. W. 356.
It is a requirement that the search warrant sufficiently describe the premises to be searched. In this case the warrant directed the officer to search the dwelling house of James O'Brien on TeCoy Road in Ninth civil district, Knox county, Tenn. According to numerous authorities, such a description is held sufficient because it enables the officer to whom it is directed to locate with reasonable certainty the place to be searched. Olson v. Haggerty, 69 Wash. 48, 124 P. 145; Blackburn v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 751, 261 S. W. 277; Little v. Commonwealth, 205 Ky. 55, 265 S. W. 433; State v. Sheehan, 111 Me. 503, 90 A. 120; McSherry v. Heimer, 132 Minn. 260, 156 N. W. 130. The affidavit is attached to the search warrant. A comprehensive description of the premises is set forth in the affidavit which is made a part of the warrant by reference. While the description in a detached affidavit cannot, without proper reference, be used to aid an insufficient description in the warrant (Cornelius, Search & Seizure, p. 331), a different rule prevails where the affidavit is attached to the warrant and the description of the affidavit is incorporated in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Taylor
...State v. Corbin, 419 A.2d 362, 363 (Me.1980); Frey v. State, 3 Md.App. 38, 46-47, 237 A.2d 774 (1968); O'Brien v. State, 158 Tenn. 400, 402, 14 S.W.2d 51 (1929).5 Nor are we called on to decide whether we would allow a separate document to supply the specificity if, though physically attach......
-
State v. Davis, No. E2003-02162-CCA-R3-CD (TN 10/25/2004), E2003-02162-CCA-R3-CD.
...But to ignore clear and unequivocal language of incorporation by reference would render plain language meaningless. O'Brien v. State, 158 Tenn. 400, 14 S.W.2d 51 (1929), held that when an affidavit is incorporated by the warrant with proper reference, then it is a part of the search warrant......
-
Poole v. State
...by directing the officer to search the house of J. F. Garrett on the Bells Road in Madison County.' It was also held in O'Brien v. State, 158 Tenn. 400, 14 S.W.2d 51, that: 'It is a requirement that the search warrant sufficiently describe the premises to be searched. In this case, the warr......
-
Feagins v. State
...We have held that the describing of the place to be searched by naming the occupant satisfies the above-mentioned test. O'Brien v. State, 158 Tenn. 400, 14 S.W.2d 51; Webb v. State, 173 Tenn. 518, 121 S.W.2d 550; Garrett v. State, 194 Tenn. 124, 250 S.W.2d The description directed the offic......