Hampton v. State

• Decision Date: 26 June 1923
• Citation: 252 S.W. 1007,148 Tenn. 155
• Parties: HAMPTON v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

252 S.W. 1007

148 Tenn. 155

HAMPTON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 26, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dyer County; Robert A. Elkins, Judge.

Alvin Hampton was convicted of illegally possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

R. D Chambers, of Dyersburg, for appellant.

W. H Swiggart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

COOK J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of illegally possessing intoxicating liquor, and adjudged to pay a fine of $150 and to serve 90 days in the workhouse. After motion for a new trial, which was overruled, appeal was prayed and granted, and errors are assigned to the action of the trial judge in admitting the testimony of the officers who entered the residence of plaintiff in error and discovered whisky.

The constable who made the search testified that upon information that whisky had been recently transported to Hampton's house he applied to a justice of the peace for a search warrant. That proceeding appears in the record as follows:

"State of Tennessee, Dyer County.

To the Sheriff or Any Lawful Officer to Execute and Return Personally appeared before me I. N. Williams an acting justice of the peace for said county H. H. Pitt, who makes oath in due form of law that to the best of his knowledge and belief _____ Hampton, who lives on the north end of the E. R. Ditmore farm in Ninth civil district of Dyer county, on Newbern and Yorkville road, is handling, making, or selling whisky unlawfully.

To Any Lawful Officer: I command you to make immediate search of the premises of said Hampton and if you find any part of said articles to return same to this court to be dealt with as the law directs.

Given under my hand and seal this 10th day of August, 1922.

I. N. Williams, J. P.

Executed by searching Alvin Hampton's house and found about two gallons of whisky.

H. H. Pitt, C. D. C."

Timely objection was made to the testimony of the officers upon the ground that the search warrant was void. The objection was overruled by the trial judge, and Officer Pitt testified about going to Hampton's house and telling him they had a search warrant, and he had as well disclose the location of whisky and avoid the consequences of a search. To this suggestion Hampton told them he had whisky in a closet. There they found 8 quarts of white whisky. W. E. Bryant, the other officer, testified substantially to these facts, and the conviction rests altogether upon this evidence, which plaintiff in error insists was obtained by illegal means.

The state insists that Hampton placed himself beyond the guaranty against unlawful search provided in article 1, § 7, of the Constitution, by voluntarily showing the whisky after the officers told him of their purpose to search. As was said in United States v. Slusser (D. C. 1921) 270 F. 818, the security of the individual against search is not waived by the owner of the premises agreeing to a search when confronted by an officer with a search warrant. The conduct of Hampton, confronted by the officers with a warrant and a declaration of the purpose to search if the whisky was not shown, suggests an act of necessity, rather than volition; hence the contention of the state is not sound.

The illegal possession of intoxicating liquors being a public offense, a search warrant in manner and form authorized by the Constitution and statutes may be issued, conferring authority upon an officer to search the premises of an alleged offender, and evidence secured by the officer in the execution of a valid search warrant is admissible upon a charge of violating the liquor laws.

But evidence obtained by search of one's premises without a search warrant, or under a void search warrant, is not admissible. Hughes v. State, 145 Tenn. 544, 238 S.W. 588, 20 A. L. R. 639; Youman v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 152, 224 S.W. 860, 13 A. L. R. 1312-1315.

Our institutions conceive the citizen as a human being with rights which are defined by law, and the state as a sovereign, whose power over the citizen is regulated and controlled by law, and law regulates the method whereby the state, through its officers, may enter and search the homes of the people, and use evidence so obtained to penalize them.

It is unnecessary to portray the historical background which produced these laws regulating search and seizure, and which illustrates necessity for their observance; it will be sufficient to recite the provisions of the Constitution and statutes, preceded by the suggestion that observance of law by those whom the state clothes with authority is no less commendable and equally as necessary for the welfare of society as enforcement of the law against the private individual.

To protect not one man's home, but all men's homes, from unlawful intrusion by public officers it was ordained in article 1, § 7, of the Constitution:

"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 commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offenses are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not be granted."

The Legislature directing procedure under this constitutional provision enacted the statutes embodied in Shannon's Code as follows:

"7

...