City of Mankato v. Grabowenski
| Decision Date | 12 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 23213.,23213. |
| Citation | 191 N.W. 603,154 Minn. 265 |
| Parties | CITY OF MANKATO v. GRABOWENSKI. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Mankato; Hiram S. Goff, Judge.
George Grabowenski was convicted of keeping and having in possession for sale one pint of intoxicating liquor, contrary to an ordinance of the City of Mankato, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The fact that liquor offered in evidence on a criminal trial was unlawfully taken from the possession of defendant does not prevent its use in evidence against him. C. O. Dailey, of Mankato, for appellant.
C. E. Gilmore, City Atty., of Mankato, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of the offense of keeping and having in his possession for sale one pint of intoxicating liquor, contrary to Ordinance No. 92 of the city of Mankato. Defendant appeals. The ordinance forbids, among other things, the keeping, or having in possession for sale, intoxicating liquor of any kind.
Defendant was conducting a soft drink parlor in Mankato under a license issued by the city under Ordinance No. 91. This ordinance provides that each licensee of a soft drink parlor ‘shall allow free access to his * * * place of business named in said license at any time by any police officer * * * of said city of Mankato, for the purpose of inspection of the said premises and the contents of the same; to ascertain whether or not the provisions of this ordinance are being complied with in the carrying on the said business.’ On June 13, 1922, a police officer of the city entered defendant's place of business for the purpose of inspection, and discovered about a pint of intoxicating liquor which the court found was kept for sale by defendant. Defendant was arrested. On the trial, before any evidence was offered, defendant moved the court to order the city officers to return the liquor seized, on the ground that it was obtained by unreasonable search and seizure. The motion was denied. The trial proceeded, and the liquor was offered in evidence by the city attorney, and was received in evidence by the court, over defendant's objection.
Defendant contends on this appeal that Ordinance No. 91, giving to police officers a right of inspection of soft drink parlors without a warrant, violates article 1, § 10, of the Constitution, which secures the people of the state against unreasonable search and seizure, and that liquor unlawfully seized cannot properly be received in evidence.
We find it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pluth
... ... our prior decisions should be followed by trial courts until ... overruled. In City of Mankato v. Grabowenski, 154 ... Minn. 265, 191 N.W. 603, a motion was made for the return of ... ...
-
State v. Pluth, 23555.
...prior decisions overruled, but added that our prior decisions should be followed by trial courts until overruled. In City of Mankato v. Grabowenski (Minn.) 191 N. W. 603, a motion was made for the return of liquor on the ground that it had been seized in an unlawful search. The motion was d......
-
State v. Pluth
...decisions overruled, but added that our prior decisions should be followed by trial courts until overruled. In City of Mankato v. Grabowenski, 154 Minn. 265, 191 N. W. 603, a motion was made for the return of liquor on the ground that it had been seized in an unlawful search. The motion was......
-
City of St. Paul v. Stovall
...186, 194 N.W. 396; State v. Kaasa, 198 Minn. 181, 269 N.W. 365; State v. Denner, 159 Minn. 189, 198 N.W. 430; City of Mankato v. Grabowenski, 154 Minn. 265, 191 N.W. 603; State v. Sauer, 217 Minn. 591, 15 2d 17; State v. Rogne, 115 Minn. 204, 132 N.W. 5; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 195 N......