Henson v. Com.
Decision Date | 23 June 1961 |
Parties | Frank HENSON, Jr., Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
John J. Tribell, Pineville, for appellant.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Wayne J. Carroll, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The affidavit for the search warrant under which the incriminating evidence in this local option case was obtained stated that the defendant 'now has in possession,' unlawfully, at the premises therein described a quantity of alcoholic beverages, and 'that knowledge of these facts was gained in the following manner, to-wit: Observation, in person.' (Italics added.) Nowhere did it state when the personal observation took place. For this reason it is contended that the affidavit was insufficient to support the warrant.
It seems to be the general rule in other jurisdictions that in order to show 'probable cause' the affidavit for a search warrant must contain a particular statement as to the time when the observation occurred, even though made by the affiant himself. See annotation, 162 A.L.R. 1406-1418. 'If an affidavit is made on affiant's own knowledge, he must disclose in the affidavit the facts on which his knowledge is based.' 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures Sec. 74, p. 870.
The rule that the affidavit is defective unless it discloses the time at which the observation was made definitely applies in Kentucky if the affidavit shows on its face that it is based on information or belief. See, for example, Com. v. Dincler, 1923, 201 Ky. 129, 255 S.W. 1042; Abraham v. Com., 1924, 202 Ky. 491, 260 S.W. 18; Vanhook v. Com., 1933, 247 Ky. 81, 56 S.W.2d 702; Barton v. Com., 1935, 257 Ky. 419 78 S.W.2d 310; Duncan v. Com., 1944, 297 Ky. 217, 179 S.W.2d 899; and Webb v. Com., Ky.1960, 339 S.W.2d 177. And in Moore v. Com., 1947, 306 Ky. 22, 206 S.W.2d 69, the same rule was applied where the affidavit, though based on the affiant's own knowledge, recited her observations in the past tense without referring to the time. However, it is also held in this state that 'the statement of the ultimate fact, as a fact and not merely on information and belief, is sufficient to establish reasonable or probable cause.' 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures Sec. 74, p. 871. Though it seems to have originated (in Mattingly v. Com., 1923, 197 Ky. 583, 247 S.W. 938, 940) by way of dictum in which great positivity of assertion served in lieu of specific supporting authority, this rule has become solidly entrenched. See Mattingly v. Com., 1923, 197 Ky. 583, 247 S.W. 938, 940; Caudill v. Com., 1923, 198 Ky. 695, 249 S.W. 1005, 1006; Walters v. Com., 1923, 199 Ky. 182, 250 S.W. 839, 841; Bowen v. Com., 1923, 199 Ky. 400, 251 S.W. 625; Moore v. Com., 1923, 200 Ky. 419, 255 S.W. 77; Blackburn v. Com., 1924, 202 Ky. 751, 261 S.W. 277; Neal v. Com., 1924, 203 Ky. 353, 262 S.W. 287; Wells v. Com., 1927, 221 Ky. 796, 299 S.W. 975; Abshire v. Com., 1924, 204 Ky. 724, 265 S.W. 304; Munson v. Com., 1923, 201 Ky. 274, 256 S.W. 393; Blackburn v. Com., 1924, 202 Ky. 751, 261 S.W. 277; Fowler v. Com., 1924, 204 Ky. 525, 264 S.W. 1075; Hubbard v. Com., 1925, 207 Ky. 76, 268 S.W. 839; Maier v. Com., 1925, 210 Ky. 441, 276 S.W. 116; Duckwall v. Com., 1925, 212 Ky. 90, 278 S.W. 562; Cosby v. Com., 1926, 215 Ky. 758, 286 S.W. 1038; Wellman v. Com., 1927, 219 Ky. 323, 292 S.W. 779; Fugitt v. Com., 1927, 220 Ky. 768, 295 S.W. 1072; and Com. v. Thomas, 1928, 225 Ky. 603, 9 S.W.2d 719.
In Com. v. Thomas, 1928, 225 Ky. 603, 9 S.W.2d 719, two affiants alleged that one Charles Cain Thomas "has spirituous and intoxicating liquor in her dwelling house or on her premises * * * for the reason that they saw said liquor in jugs," etc. The trial court excluded the evidence found by the search, because the affidavit did not fix the time when the affiants saw the liquor. This action was based on Abraham v. Com., 1924, 202 Ky. 491, 260 S.W. 18, in which an affidavit stating the affiant's belief that liquor was illegally possessed at a certain place because he smelled the odor of it emanating from the premises was held insufficient. This court, however, distinguished the Abraham case as follows:
The opinion goes on to say (quoting from Neal v. Com., 1924, 203 Ky. 353, 262 S.W. 287) that the difference between the affiant's saying he believes the fact to exist and saying it does exist is that in the one case he avoids, while in the other he assumes, responsibility for the truth of the averment, from which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Beshany
...(Duncan v. Commonwealth, 297 Ky. 217, 218, 179 S.W.2d 899; see, also, Poldo v. United States, supra, 55 F.2d 866, 868; Henson v. Commonwealth, Ky.1961, 347 S.W.2d 546, 548; State v. Dondis, 111 Me. 17, 87 A. 478, 479; People v. Musk 231 Mich. 187, 203 N.W. 865; Garza v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R.......
-
Rogers v. Com.
...cases reaffirming that test, but in light of recent developments in the law, we question whether they are still sound. In Henson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 347 S.W.2d 546, we specifically renounced the 'ultimate fact' theory as a basis for deducing 'probable cause' from an affidavit for a search......
-
Schweinefuss v. Com.
...the date of the affidavit. We deem it sufficient. We think nothing in Smallwood v. Commonwealth, Ky., 349 S.W.2d 830, or Henson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 347 S.W.2d 546, impels a different conclusion. The fact that the affidavit under consideration was specific as to date and place differentiat......
-
Rawls v. Commonwealth
...he was a party to the drug transaction), which this Court has found to be an indicator of reliability. See generally Henson v. Commonwealth, 347 S.W.2d 546 (Ky.1961) (holding knowledge of facts gained by personal observation sufficient to establish probable cause). Second, the officer confi......