Castillow v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | 29467 |
| Citation | 160 Miss. 473,135 So. 205 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | CASTILLOW v. STATE |
ARREST CRIMINAL LAW. Arrest and search of defendant without warrant held illegal, in view of surrounding circumstances, rendering evidence obtained inadmissible.
Evidence tended to show that neither sheriff nor his deputy had a warrant for the arrest of the defendant or for a search of his person or possession, and that there were no circumstances at time of defendant's arrest, other than certain information received that the defendant would have liquor in his possession, to indicate to the officers that the defendant at the time had any liquor in his possession.
APPEAL from circuit court of Pearl River county, HON. J. Q LANGSTON, Judge.
Monroe Castillow was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
J. M. Morse, of Poplarville, for appellant.
Evidence, which is obtained by an illegal arrest cannot be properly admitted in a liquor prosecution.
Objections were seasonably made to the introduction of any evidence in respect to the liquor because that evidence was discovered as a direct result of an unlawful arrest. Since the trial of the present case in the court below, the supreme court has decided this question in favor of contention of appellant.
The error was not cured by an act of appellant as was in case of Goodman v. State, 130 So. 285.
This case must, under Section 23 of the Constitution of 1890, state of Mississippi, be reversed and the appellant discharged.
Eugene B. Ethridge, Special Agent, for the state.
We have carefully and astutely examined the authorities relative to the question presented in this case and are of the opinion that the arrest was illegal, and that the trial court erred in permitting the evidence obtained thereby and as a result thereof to become a part of the record.
It is an understood rule of law in this jurisdiction that evidence procured as a result of an illegal arrest cannot properly be admitted in the prosecution of a charge of possession of intoxicating liquor.
It is unnecessary to go into any lengthy discussion of the case, or to enumerate numerous authorities justifying the conclusion that we have reached. It is regrettable that a violator of the law is to be protected in such a manner as becomes necessary here. However, it appears to the state that it is far more important that section 23 of the constitution of the State of Mississippi be upheld, and that the privacy and security thrown around the citizenship by virtue of that constitutional provision be most carefully and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canning v. State, 45479
...for her arrest. Of course, if the arrest were illegal, the evidence obtained by the search of her person was illegal. Castillow v. State, 160 Miss. 473, 135 So. 205 (1931). Inasmuch as there is no evidence connecting the defendant with the possession of marijuana, other than microscopic fib......
-
Penick v. State
...et al v. State, 198 Miss. 767, 23 So.2d 401 (1945); Hinton, et al v. Sims, et al, 171 Miss. 741, 158 So. 141 (1934); Castillow v. State, 160 Miss. 473, 135 So. 205 (1931); Myers v. State, 158 Miss. 554, 130 So. 741 We, therefore, reverse and remand for proceedings in the Circuit Court consi......
-
Smith v. State
...since the officer did not have sufficient probable cause to know that a crime was being committed in his presence. See Castillow v. State, 160 Miss. 473, 135 So. 205; Jones v. State, 216 Miss. 263, 62 So.2d 334; Feazell v. State, 217 Miss. 879, 65 So.2d 267. Our Court has made it very clear......
-
Branning v. State
...v. State, 148 Miss. 739, 114 So. 825, (Retrial 152 Miss. 298, 120 So. 170); Smith v. State, 160 Miss. 56, 133 So. 240; Castillow v. State, 160 Miss. 473, 135 So. 205; Laster v. Chaney, 180 Miss. 110, 177 So. 524; McGowan v. State, 184 Miss. 96, 185 So. 836; Craft v. State, 202 Miss. 43, 30 ......