Hampton v. State.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1920
• Docket Number: 23171
• Citation: 132 Miss. 154,96 So. 166
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: Hampton v. State.

96 So. 166

132 Miss. 154

Hampton v. State.

No. 23171

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 1, 1920

1. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures held not to refer to unauthorized acts of private persons.

The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in section 23 of the state Constitution of 1890 is intended to prevent such as are made through governmental agencies, and has no bearing on the unauthorized acts of private persons.

2. CRIMINAL LAW. Judgment not reversed for erroneous instruction unless complaining party prejudiced.

A judgment should not be reversed because of the granting of an erroneous instruction unless the party complaining thereat was prejudiced thereby.

HON. R L. CORBAN, Judge.

Mose Hampton was convicted of burglary and he appeals. Affirmed.

P. M Stockett, for appellant.

Did the learned court err in overruling the motion to exclude the testimony of all the state's witnesses as to what they saw or found in the home of the defendant? I will consider both of these propositions together.

In the first place the record shows on the face of the same by direct and positive testimony, especially for the state, that there was no search warrant had to make this search by any of the witnesses for the state. Also that the defendant Mose Hampton was not there present at the time of the unlawful search.

With a careful comparison of the facts and the law in this case with the facts and the law in the case of Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 224, we will readily see that this case and Tucker v. State, so far as the facts are concerned in determining the law, are similar in every respect with the following exception: "In the case of Tucker v. State, a constable and his assistant officers of the law, made an unlawful search of the home of Tucker, without a search warrant, and there saw, found, and took a still and a quantity of distilled whiskey from his home without his consent and without any legal authority. This testimony was admitted over defendant's objection, and on appeal to this honorable court the case was reversed and the defendant discharged."

In the case at bar we see the manager of a wealthy landlord's plantation, armed not with a legal search warrant but with a weapon, going into the defendant's home, yes his sacred home, even though he is a poor negro tenant, while he is not there, without his consent, without any living person's consent, making an unlawful search, calling the prosecuting witness John Love into that home, humble cabin though it was, and then and there taking certain property therefrom, without any authority or semblance of authority, bring that testimony before the grand jury and the petit jury and as a result, the defendant is today branded as a criminal, lingering behind the penitentiary walls of the great state of Mississippi. Is that right? Is that the law is construed by this honorable court? Are not sections 23 and 26 of the Constitution of the state of Mississippi violated by this conviction? If so, this case should be reversed and defendant discharged.

In support of appellant's contention that the court below committed grave and reversible error in admitting testimony as to what was seen and found in defendant's home over his objections, and motions to exclude, he would respectfully cite the well reasoned, and recent case decided by this honorable court, namely: Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211 to 224, and the following citations therein contained in the opinion: Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746; Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell, St. Tr. 1029; Silverthorn Lumber Co. v. U. S., 251 U.S. 385, 64 L.Ed. 319; Gould v. U. S., 255 U.S. 298, 45 S.Ct. 261; Amos v. U. S., 255 U.S., 313, 41 S.Ct. 266. S. C. Broom, special assistant attorney-general, for appellee.

It will be observed that this alleged unlawful search and seizure was made not by any officer of the law, but by the foreman in charge on that plantation, and by John Love, the man who had suffered at the hands of his neighbor. Therefore the law of search and seizure is not involved, and the rule laid down in the Tucker case does not apply, because the law of search and seizure has no application to individuals acting without authority of law. We find cn page 704 of 24 Ruling Case Law, under the subject of search and seizure, the following: "It has no application to individuals acting without authority of law. The constitutional prohibition, being intended to prevent such as are made through government agencies, has no bearing on the unauthorized act of private persons or of petty officers of the law, citing Williams v. State, 100 Ga. 511, 28 S.E. 624, 39 L. R. A. 269; Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 58 U.S. (L. Ed.) 652; Cobn v. State, 120 Tenn. 61, 109 S.W. 1149, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 451.

In the case of Williams v. State, supra, on page 272, 39 L. R. A. the court said: "For the misconduct of private persons acting upon their individual responsibility and of their own volition, surely none of the three divisions of government is responsible. If the constitutional rights of a citizen are invaded by a mere individual, the most that any branch of government can do is to afford the citizen such redress as is possible and bring the wrongdoer to account for his unlawful conduct."

It therefore appears that in the present case, these people were, at most, trespassers, but they were not officers of the law or representatives of the government. They did not break and enter; they did not humiliate by means of arrest; they did not coerce by legal power or under color of law. They acted as individuals. They were not...