Burtch v. Zeuch

• Decision Date: 17 March 1925
• Docket Number: No. 36414.,36414.
• Citation: 200 Iowa 49,202 N.W. 542
• Parties: BURTCH v. ZEUCH, JUDGE, ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

200 Iowa 49

202 N.W. 542

BURTCH

v.ZEUCH, JUDGE, ET AL.

No. 36414.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 17, 1925.

Certiorari from Municipal Court of Des Moines; H. F. Zeuch, Judge.

Original proceedings in certiorari to test the validity of an order made by respondents adjudging the petitioner guilty of contempt. The opinion sufficiently states the facts. The petition is dismissed, the writ discharged, and the order entered by the defendant judge is affirmed.Theodore F. Mantz, of Des Moines, for petitioner.

Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., and Vernon R. Seeburger, Co. Atty., Russell Jordan, Asst. Co. Atty., and Ralph Powers, Special Prosecutor, all of Des Moines, for respondents.

DE GRAFF, J.

The action giving rise to the proceedings in certiorari in this case is predicated on section 12541, Code 1924. The material part thereof reads:

“The following acts or omissions are contempts, and are punishable as such by any of the courts of this state, * * * as hereinafter provided: * * * (3) Illegal resistance to any order or process made or issued by it.”

The petitioner herein, as defendant in the court below, was accused on information of contempt of court, in that he unlawfully, willfully, and illegally resisted an order or process issued by the municipal court of Des Moines, to wit, a search warrant for intoxicating liquor. The specific charge is that he did willfully and knowingly dump certain intoxicating liquors about to be seized under a search warrant into a sink on the premises designated in the search warrant.

Burtch was cited to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt by reason of his acts and conduct as alleged in the information. Upon arrest he filed an appearance bond and subsequently entered his plea of not guilty. Trial was had and the court adjudged him guilty, imposing a fine of $50 and costs. Thereafter petition in certiorari was filed in this court and writ issued.

The facts disclose that on the 11th day of March, 1924, one T. R. Pettit, of Des Moines, signed and swore to an information before H. H. Sawyer, one of the judges of the municipal court of Des Moines, to have issued a search warrant for intoxicating liquors. On the same day a warrant issued and was placed in the hands of a Des Moines police officer, who went to 606 Mulberry street, Des Moines, Iowa, which was the place designated in the warrant, for the purpose of service. As the officers entered the place one of them called out: “Officer with a search warrant.” On this announcement the petitioner, Burtch, who happened to be in the place, but whose connection or relation thereto is not disclosed, dumped or poured a certain amount of alcohol into the sink and broke the container before the officers could get to him. It is also shown that the sink and the broken container had the odor of alcohol and that a number of empty whisky bottles were in the place.

Upon the conclusion of the state's testimony the defendant interposed a motion “that the information for contempt herein be dismissed.” No evidence was introduced on behalf of the defendant. This motion challenges the power of the court to adjudge him guilty of contempt: (1) That the act of the defendant as charged in the information does not constitute contempt within the purview of the statutory definition; (2) that the information and search warrant introduced by the state, over the objection of the defendant, were invalid, in that they were not in conformity to the provisions of our state Constitution and our statutes governing search warrants. In effect, the motion constituted a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the alleged contempt. The questions presented on the fact side bearing directly on the acts and conduct of the defendant are: (1) Did the accused have knowledge of the officers' attempt to execute the search warrant in question? (2) Did he commit the acts charged in defiance of the terms of the search warrant? (3) Did the state establish these propositions by the quantum of proof required in a contempt proceeding?

[1][2] I. To warrant a conviction the guilt of the accused must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence. Sawyer v. Hutchinson, 149 Iowa, 93, 127 N. W. 1089;Russell v. Anderson, 141 Iowa, 533, 120 N. W. 89. Clearly Burtch had knowledge at the time of the commission of the act charged that the officers were about to search the premises in which at that time he happened to be. He personally knew some of the officers. It is also shown without dispute that Burtch dumped and attempted to destroy the evidence of intoxicating liquor which was in the place subject to search. The facts and circumstances establish the corpus delicti beyond question. Furthermore, the purpose and intent of Burtch in doing what he did is quite evident. His act was willful, and constituted an illegal resistance to the service of process within the purview of the statutory definition. An unlawful interference or an attempt to interfere with the proper execution of legal process is an obstruction of the due administration of justice and constitutes contempt. The power of a court to punish for contempt extends to all persons who interfere with the proper exercise of its judicial functions, including officers of a court, parties litigant, or strangers. 13 C. J. § 43 et seq. The act of Burtch was an attempt to make futile a process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and therefore constituted a criminal constructive contempt, being directed against the dignity and authority of the court. On this phase of the case the propositions urged by the petitioner are without merit.

[3] II. As heretofore indicated, the motion of defendant to dismiss the contempt proceeding not only questioned the sufficiency of the evidence bearing directly on the specific acts and conduct of the defendant, but also challenged the validity of the information and search warrant introduced in evidence. To constitute a contempt predicated on the illegal resistance to an order or process of the court, within the meaning of the statute, the order or process must have issued in the first instance in conformity to law. There can be no contempt based on a process which is wholly void. It is to be observed that the information and search warrant are simply items of evidence in the contempt case, and are subject to the ordinary and usual rules governing the admission of evidence. Therefore, unless it may be said that these documents were prima facie competent when offered by plaintiff, the objections of the defendant should have been sustained.

The pertinent and controlling question is: Was the search warrant in question a void process? The challenge made by the petitioner to the information and warrant is in these particulars: (1) That the search warrant was not issued upon probable cause, as defined in ...