Coburn v. State

• Citation: 148 P.2d 483,78 Okla.Crim. 362
• Decision Date: 26 April 1944
• Docket Number: A-10314.
• Parties: COBURN v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

148 P.2d 483

78 Okla.Crim. 362

COBURN v. STATE.

No. A-10314.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

April 26, 1944

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A search warrant is effective for only one search, and when this is completed officers may not return and again search premises by reason of said warrant.

2. But where officers go to premises armed with a search warrant but by reason of certain conditions the warrant is not served nor executed, it is not grounds for the suppression of the evidence by reason of the fact that officers returned a short time thereafter, and served the warrant, and searched the premises by reason thereof.

3. Demurrer to information properly overruled.

4. Judgment and sentence modified and affirmed where defendant was charged and convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.

Appeal from County Court, Payne County; Paul L. Myrick, Judge.

G. M Coburn was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.

Judgment and sentence modified and as modified affirmed.

Leon J York, of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, for plaintiff in error.

Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., and James M. Springer, Jr., Co. Atty of Stillwater, for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT Judge.

Defendant, G. M. Coburn, was charged in the County Court of Payne County with the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, to-wit: Eleven pints of tax paid and six pints of bonded liquor; was tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of four hundred dollars, and serve five months in the County jail, and has appealed.

It is contended that this case should be reversed by reason of the refusal to suppress the evidence because of the invalidity of the search and seizure.

The evidence on the motion to quash revealed that the defendant resided in a rural residence near the city of Stillwater, in Payne County. That Joe Bradley, a deputy sheriff, secured a search warrant on Saturday the 20th day of December, 1941, for the purpose of searching the premises of defendant. That on Sunday, the 21st day of December, he, in company with the chief of police of Stillwater and two other police officers, went to the home of defendant for the purpose of executing the search. When they arrived at the premises and contacted defendant, they saw several parked automobiles in the yard. Upon being told by the officers they intended to make search, he told them he had a number of friends there and it would be very embarrassing for them to search at that time. The officers, as a "courtesy" to the defendant. did not search at that time and left the premises. They did not serve the search warrant which they had, on defendant, but in less than an hour and when the guests had left, they returned to the premises and served the search warrant on defendant, and executed the same. As a result of the search, five pints of tax paid and bonded whiskey were found in the residence of defendant, and eleven pints were found in a brush pile near a fence on the premises. The officers did not know whether the eleven pints were on his premises or not, but there was a path leading from his premises to where the liquor was found.

The defendant testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence, but did not testify at the trial of the case, and he did not offer any testimony.

The facts as above stated do not in our opinion bring this case within the rule often announced that officers may not twice search the same premises where only one...