O'Brien v. State

• Decision Date: 25 February 1929
• Citation: 14 S.W.2d 51,158 Tenn. 400
• Parties: O'BRIEN v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

14 S.W.2d 51

158 Tenn. 400

O'BRIEN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 25, 1929

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.

COOK J.

Officers with a search warrant entered the premises of plaintiff in error and discovered there in his possession 8 1/2 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...