Hansen v. State
| Decision Date | 17 November 1925 |
| Citation | 205 N.W. 813,188 Wis. 266 |
| Parties | HANSEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Brown County; N. J. Monahan, Judge.
Mrs. A. P. Hansen was convicted of the unlawful possession of alcoholic liquor, and she brings error. Affirmed.John V. Diener, of Green Bay, for plaintiff in error.
H. L. Ekern, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Raymond E. Evrard, Dist. Atty., and Lee Cranston, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Green Bay, for the State.
It appears that the defendant conducted a restaurant at No. 217 Cherry street, Green Bay, Wis., and that above her restaurant and adjoining store there were east and west flats separated by a common hallway. The liquor in question was found in a closet or storeroom on the east side of the common hallway, which storeroom was claimed to be in the possession of a Mr. Stanley who had a sublease from the lessee of the east flat. The defendant occupied the west flat.
Police officers applied to the Municipal judge for a search warrant for No. 217 Cherry street, and one was issued, and a search made, with the result that the liquor was found in the storeroom described. At the time the officers found the liquor the defendant admitted to them that it was hers, and such admission is not disputed. Mr. Stanley testified that the liquor was not his.
[1][2][3] It is claimed by the defendant, first, that the sworn testimony before the municipal judge did not furnish a sufficient basis for the issuance of the search warrant because it was only upon information and belief, and, second, that the warrant did not correctly describe the place where the liquor was found. We deem it unnecessary to discuss either of these contentions, because the admission of defendant that the liquor belonged to her, coupled with the denial of Mr. Stanley that it was his, rendered any defect in the search warrant immaterial. The liquor was not found upon her premises, and it does not lie in her mouth to claim that the search of Mr. Stanley's premises was unlawful. So far as the record discloses, they may have been searched with his consent. There is no evidence of any objection on his part. The same is true as to any defect in the description of the premises in the warrant. The defendant cannot nullify the result by claiming that somebody else's premises were not correctly described. When she admitted that the liquor belonged to her, the jury, under the circumstances disclosed, could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Van Brocklin
...act. State v. Baltes, 183 Wis. 545, 552, 198 N. W. 282;State v. Blumenstein, 186 Wis. 428, 430, 202 N. W. 684;Hansen v. State, 188 Wis. 266, 268, 205 N. W. 813. It is treated as such in Frihart v. State, 189 Wis. 622, 624, 208 N. W. 469. It is so held in People v. Fons, 223 Mich. 603, 606, ......
-
State v. Tye, 99-3331-CR.
...v. State, 196 Wis. 265, 268, 220 N.W. 227 (1928); Bergeman v. State, 189 Wis. 615, 617, 208 N.W. 470 (1926); Hansen v. State, 188 Wis. 266, 268, 205 N.W. 813 (1925); State v. Blumenstein, 186 Wis. 428, 430, 202 N.W. 684 19. State's Brief at 17. 20. The four arguments relate to the applicati......
-
Glodowski v. State
...determining whether or not probable cause exists.” State v. Baltes, 183 Wis. 545, 552, 198 N. W. 282, 285. See, also, Hansen v. State, 188 Wis. 266, 268, 205 N. W. 813. It follows that a search warrant cannot be issued upon a statement under oath based entirely upon information and belief, ......
-
Millin v. State
...within the mouth of Millin, the plaintiff in error, to claim that the search of the Hesselman premises was not lawful. Hansen v. State, 188 Wis. 266, 267, 205 N. W. 813;Goldberg v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 297 F. 98, 101; MacDaniel v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 768, 771. 2. The testimony upon which th......