Haile v. Gardner

• Decision Date: 08 November 1921
• Citation: 91 So. 376,82 Fla. 355
• Parties: HAILE v. GARDNER, Sheriff.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

91 So. 376

82 Fla. 355

HAILE v. GARDNER, Sheriff.

Florida Supreme Court

November 8, 1921

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1921.

Error to Circuit Court, Marion County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.

Proceeding by John Haile against J. W. Gardner, as Sheriff, in habeas corpus for the plaintiff's release from custody.Judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed and rehearing denied.

On Petition for Rehearing.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures forbids laws permitting them, as well as unreasonable acts under valid laws.The constitutional guaranty against unreasonable seizures and searches' in purpose and effect forbids the Legislature to enact laws that authorize unreasonable searches or seizures as well as forbids unreasonable searches and seizures by officers purporting to act under laws that authorize reasonable seizures and searches.

What is a reasonable law is ultimately for judicial determination.What is a reasonable law authorizing a search or seizure is ultimately for judicial determination upon due consideration of the nature and extent of the evil designed to be remedied and the provisions of the law.

What is a reasonable or valid search or seizure is for judicial determination.What is a reasonable or valid search or seizure is to be determined by the courts upon due consideration of the circumstances and manner in which the search or seizure is made by the officer.

Not permissible without proper warrant duly issued.No search or seizure is permissible under the law without a proper warrant duly issued, except as a reasonable search and seizure may be allowed by law as an incident to a lawful arrest.

Officer may make reasonable search and seizure properly incident to lawful arrest for offense committed or threatened in his presence.Where an arrest without a warrant is allowed by law, as for an offense being committed or threatened in the presence of an officer authorized by law to make arrests for such offense, a reasonable search and seizure that is properly incident to a lawful arrest may be made in a reasonable and proper manner by the officer making the lawful arrest; but the search and seizure should not be inappropriate to the reasonable requirements for making effective a lawful arrest.

Warrants should not issue except upon due showing upon oath indicating probable violation of law, and particularly describing the person or thing to be searched or seized.Warrants authorizing a search or seizure may be issued only by the authorized officers; and such warrants should not be issued except upon a due showing upon oath or affirmation indicating a probable violation of law, and the warrants should particularly describe the person or place or thing to be searched or seized as indicated in the applications duly made for the warrants.

Sufficient to allege generally and prove that liquor is alcoholic or intoxicating.Chapter 7736, Acts 1918, provides that in prosecutions thereunder 'it shall be sufficient to allege generally and to prove that the [liquor] is alcoholic or intoxicating liquors or beverages.'

Cannot be used to correct mere errors of procedure where court has jurisdiction.The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to correct mere errors of procedure where the court had jurisdiction of the defendant and of the offense which is sufficiently charged, and the judgment is within the power of the court to render.

May be used to test legality of imprisonment or detention in custody and addressed to person having custody.The writ of habeas corpus may be used to test the legality of an imprisonment or a detention in custody, and may be addressed to any person having the custody of another alleged to be illegal.

Is addressed to inferior court to determine jurisdiction from face of record, and issues only where no direct appellate proceedings are provided by law.The writ of certiorari is addressed to an inferior court, and may be obtained only to determine from the face of the record of the inferior court whether such court in rendering a judgment complained of exceeded its jurisdiction, or did not proceed according to the essential requirements of the law.The writ issues only in cases where no direct appellate proceedings are provided by law.[Ed. Note.--For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Certiorari.]

Writ of habeas corpus is one of right, but writ of certiorari issues in exercise of discretion.The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right when a showing is duly made entitling a party to the use of the writ; but the writ of certiorari issues only in the exercise of a sound legal discretion of the superior court.

Charge held to state offense of possession; statute held constitutional.A charge that defendant'did unlawfully have in his possession certain intoxicating liquors contrary to statute' held sufficient to state an offense under Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 5468, of which the court had jurisdiction under section 5487, and the statute is not invalid as to its provisions that are appropriate to the enforcement of federal Amendment 18.

Titles of acts held applicable to enforcement of state as well as federal prohibition.The titles of Acts 1918, c. 7736, as amended byActs 1919, c. 7890, held applicable to the enforcement of both the prohibitions of Const.Fla. art. 19andConst.U.S. Amend. 18.

Eighteenth Amendment is paramount to conflicting state laws.Const.U.S Amend. 18, is paramount to the state law on the subject of intoxicating liquors, with its resulting effect on state laws which conflict therewith.

Statutes held appropriate to enforce 18th amendment, and valid portions thereof not rendered inoperative by invalid portions.Provisions of Acts 1918, c. 7736, as amended byActs 1919, c. 7890, held appropriate to enforce Const.U.S. Amend. 18, relating to intoxicating liquors, and the valid portions of the statutes are not rendered inoperative by invalid portions, if any.

Exceptions to forbidding of possession of intoxicating liquors in state statute and Volstead Act held protected by federal Constitution.Both the statestatutes and the Volstead Act forbade possession of intoxicating liquors except as expressly made lawful in the statutes, which exceptions are protected by Const.U.S. Amend. 14.

COUNSEL

Robert E. Davis, of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.

Rivers H. Buford, Atty. Gen., and J. B. Gaines, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

This writ of error was allowed and taken to a judgment quashing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff.It appears that John Haile was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the county judge's court upon a charge that he'did unlawfully have in his possession certain intoxicating liquors, contrary to the statute'; that at the trial it was shown by the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions that the defendant's residence was searched at night by officers (who the petitioner alleges did so without warrants of search, seizure, or arrest); that certain quantities of 'moonshine liquor' were by search found in the residence, and such 'moonshine liquor' was referred to as evidence of guilt at the trial; and it further appears that the court charged the jury:

'That, where a person is found in the possession of what is commonly called rum or moonshine liquor, this is prima facie evidence that he had such possession unlawfully and put the burden on the defendant to prove that his possession was lawful.By prima facie evidence is meant evidence sufficient to convict the defendant, unless the defendant proves that his possession was lawful'

--and also charged that:

'The possession of moonshine liquor by the defendant in this case, I believe, is not disputed by the defendant; then, unless the defendant proves to you that his possession was lawful--that is, unless he proves to you that he obtained his possession of this liquor prior to August 7, 1919, and that he had (not exceeding four quarts) in his own private residence for the use of himself or his family and not to be disposed of to any person in any way--or unless his proof raises a reasonable doubt in your mind of his guilt, then you should find the defendant guilty.'

The charge stating the offense is sufficient under the statute.Section 6, c. 7736, Acts 1918(section 5468, Rev. Gen. Stats.).The court had jurisdiction of the offense.Section 5487,Revised General Statutes 1920.And the statute is not invalid as to its provisions that are appropriate to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.SeeWood v. Whitaker,81 Fla. ----, 89 So. 118;Burrows v. Moran,81 Fla. ----, 89 So. 111;Hall v. Moran,81 Fla. ----, 89 So. 104;Johnson v. State,81 Fla. ----, 89 So. 114.See, also, Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co.,254 U.S. 88, 41 S.Ct. 31, 65 L.Ed. 151, 10 A. L. R. 1548.As to unlawful searches and seizures, seeGouled v. United States,255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647;Amos v. United States,255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654;Tillman v. State,81 Fla. ----, 88 So. 377.

'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.'Section 22, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution.

This organic provision in purpose and effect forbids the Legislature to enact laws that authorize unreasonable searches or seizures as well as forbids unreasonable searches and seizures...