Cooper v. State
| Decision Date | 21 July 1932 |
| Citation | 143 So. 217,106 Fla. 254 |
| Parties | COOPER v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Walton County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.
Willie Cooper was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and he brings certiorari.
Judgment quashed.
COUNSEL W. W. Flournoy, of De Funiak Springs, for petitioner.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In this case petitioner was convicted in the county judge's court of Walton county of the offense of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor. Certain alleged intoxicating liquor was procured under authority of a pretended search warrant from the residence of the accused, and was used against the defendant at the trial over the objection of defendant as evidence against him. At the close of the evidence defendant's counsel was limited by order of the court to five minutes in which to argue defendant's case before the jury.
On writ of error the judgment was affirmed by the circuit court, and the case now comes to us on certiorari.
It is contended that the defendant was convicted in violation of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States and sections 11 and 22 of the Declaration of Rights of the state of Florida. Section 22 of the Declaration of Rights, which is as follows:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses papers and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches, shall not be violated, and no warrants issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place or places to be searched and the person or persons, and thing or things to be seized;'
--was not placed in the organic law of this state as an idle gesture. The Supreme Court of Alabama in the case of City of Bessemer v. Eidge, 162 Ala. 201, 50 So. 270, 271, said:
'Search warrants are not allowed for the purpose of obtaining evidence, but they should be allowed only after the evidence has been obtained. There are exceptions to this rule, a few specific cases, where that which is the subject of the crime is supposed to be concealed, and the public has an interest in finding it and destroying it. Such are searches for stolen goods, or for smuggled goods in violation of revenue law, and implements for gaming, counterfeiting, lottery tickets, liquors made in violation of revenue law or sold in violation of prohibition law, obscene books and papers, explosives, injurious materials, etc. 'It is oftentimes better that crimes should go unpunished than that citizens should be liable to have their premises invaded, their private books and papers exposed or destroyed at the hands of ignorant and suspicious men, under the direction of ministerial officers who may bring such persons as he pleases and who selects them on account of their physical courage rather than their sensitive regard for the rights or feelings of other people.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 372.
'The common-law maxim, 'Every man's house is his castle,' is guaranteed by the constitutional provision of 'the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,' and that 'no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.' It was said by Lord Chatham that 'the poorest man in his cottage may bid definance to all the forces of the crown; it may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the king may not enter, and all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.'
.
Section 8518, C. G. L., which was section 19 of chapter 9321, Acts of 1923, as amended by section 2 of chapter 10273, Acts of 1925, provides in part:
'No warrant for the search of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Filmon v. State
...generally necessary for searches of private dwellings both as a matter of Florida law, see Fla.Stat. § 933.18 (1975), Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217 (1932); Pesce v. State, 288 So.2d 264 (Fla.App.4th, 1974); Gelis v. State, 249 So.2d 509 (Fla.App.2nd, 1971); Panzavecchia v. Stat......
-
Swartz v. State
...the grounds of the application or probable cause'. (See Dunnavant v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 871 and Cooper v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1932, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217) F.S. § 933.06, which deals with applications for search warrants in general 'The judge or magistrate must, before issuin......
-
Chacon v. State
...that unlawful gambling and a lottery for money are actually being operated within said building.' This Court held in Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217, that an Affidavit for a liquor Search Warrant not stating facts on which Affiant's belief was based, and where Affidavit recited, ......
-
Foster v. State
...v. State, 453 So.2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), and to five minutes in an illegal possession of intoxicating liquor case. Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217 (1932). Running through all of these cases is the court's concern that where human liberty is at stake, as in a criminal case, co......