Cravens v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 1923 |
| Citation | 256 S.W. 431 |
| Parties | CRAVENS v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Pierce & Fry, of Union City, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. A. Swiggart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the violation of one of our liquor laws and has appealed in error to this court.
The evidence upon which this conviction rests was procured through the instrumentality of a search warrant based upon an affidavit of the sheriff, made on the information and belief of that officer, that probable cause existed to justify the writ. The character of his information was not disclosed. We reiterate our announcement lately made in Elliott v. State, 256 S. W. 431, that such a warrant is void.
If the magistrate is to issue a search warrant without being apprised of the reasons leading the sheriff to think a search should be made, and without weighing these reasons, then the propriety of a search is always in the discretion of the police officer, and there is no judicial discretion involved. Why require a warrant? Why not let the officer make it on his own responsibility, if his bare opinion as to the necessity for a search justifies process authorizing it?
The history of our ancestors for 300 years has demonstrated that police officers cannot be permitted to ransack at will the properties of the people. Intolerable conditions have always followed such practices. A revolution in England and the revolution of the American colonies are said by high authorities to have been largely influenced by promiscuous seizures and searches of the houses and effects of the people — efforts by the constituted authorities to procure evidence of the violation of regulations deemed wise by those in power, but unpopular with many, and constantly transgressed.
Another storm was rising in England following a renewal of such oppression, when Lord Camden delivered his great judgment in Entinck v. Carrington, 19 St. Tr. 1030, 1067, 95 Eng. Reprint 807, denying the validity of a search warrant not issued by a judicial officer after investigation of the particular case in which the warrant was sought. This decision is everywhere alluded to as one of the landmarks of Anglo-Saxon liberty. Its principles have been embodied in the Constitution of the United States, and of the several states; the language of the Constitution of Tennessee being as follows:
"That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial