Ellison v. State
| Decision Date | 12 June 1948 |
| Citation | 212 S.W.2d 387,186 Tenn. 581 |
| Parties | ELLISON v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court, Gibson County; Lyle B. Cherry, Judge.
R. B Ellison was convicted of the unlawful possession of whiskey and he appeals in error.
Judgment affirmed.
W. R Landrum, of Trenton, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, R. B. Ellison, was convicted for the unlawful possession of whisky and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and a jail sentence of ninety days.
The record shows that a search warrant was issued under which officers searched the apartment of the defendant in Trenton and found about 60 half pints of whisky concealed about the wall. The defendant offered no testimony in his own behalf. The objections raised upon this appeal in error are:
1. That the search warrant is insufficient with reference to the date upon which the affiant's informer gathered his information.
2. That the description is too broad.
As to the first objection, the affiant made oath that the defendant 'is now in possession of liquor and that the informant has just informed him that he had just recently seen liquors placed on the premises and that he had recently seen persons drinking, going to the premises sober, and returning drunk.' (Emphasis ours.)
Without going into an extensive discussion of the matter, it is sufficient to say we are of opinion that this objection is fully covered by our recent case of Waggener v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 258, 191 S.W.2d 551, 552, 162 A.L.R. 1402. The language of the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued in that case was to the effect that sales had been made ' frequently and within the last few days.'
Words should be given their natural meaning and interpretation, and simply because the instrument is a search warrant is no reason why we should look to possibilities of construction. See Douglas v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 29, 161 S.W.2d 92.
The second objection is that the description in the search warrant is too indefinite in that it embraces quarters occupied by strangers, and for that reason is a general warrant. The affidavit, which is made a part of the warrant, by reference limits the description to the apartment or premises occupied by the defendant. O'Brien v. State, 158, Tenn. 400, 14 S.W.2d 51.
All assignments of error have been fully considered by us and are overruled....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frey v. State
...See Fry v. United States, 9 F.2d 38 (9th Cir.); People v. DeLago, 16 N.Y.2d 289, 266 N.Y.S.2d 353, 213 N.E.2d 659; Ellison v. State, 186 Tenn. 581, 212 S.W.2d 387; Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, Vol. 1, p. 319. Certainly, a designation in the affidavit of the apartments to be sea......
-
Com. v. Todisco
...496, 154 N.E. 278; Frey v. State, 3 Md.App. 38, 46, 237 A.2d 774; O'Brien v. State, 158 Tenn. 400, 402, 14 S.W.2d 51; Ellison v. State, 186 Tenn. 581, 583, 212 S.W.2d 387, annotation, 11 A.L.R.3d 1330, 1346. The parties have stipulated that Officer Lussier made out the affidavit and was als......
-
State v. Smith
...for search warrants their natural meaning and interpretation and should not look to possibilities of construction. Ellison v. State, 186 Tenn. 581, 212 S.W.2d 387 (1948). 'The United States Supreme Court recognized, in the case of Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L......
-
Hackerman v. State
... ... nefarious business. We cannot conceive how [189 Tenn. 134] ... the affidavit could be more complete and definite. The ... question here is whether any part of the affidavit can be ... looked to in determining the validity of the warrant itself ... In ... Ellison v. State, 186 Tenn. 581, 582-583, 212 S.W.2d ... 387, 388, this Court said: 'Words should be given their ... natural meaning and interpretation, and simply because the ... instrument is a search warrant is no reason why we should ... look to possibilities of construction. See Douglas v ... ...