Howard v. State, 125
| Decision Date | 12 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 125,125 |
| Citation | 199 Md. 529,87 A.2d 161 |
| Parties | HOWARD v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Stinchcomb, Baltimore (S. Alfred Mund, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Kenneth C. Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen., (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., Anselm Sodaro, State's Atty., and Edwin A. Gehring, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief); for appellee.
Before MARBURY, Chief Judge, and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
The appellant was convicted of violating the laws against lottery and sentenced to nine months in the House of Correction and a fine of one thousand dollars. The first question raised is the validity of the search warrant under which evidence against him was obtained. He filed a motion to quash the warrant, which was overruled before the trial began, and in the course of the trial, before the court without a jury, objected to the introduction of evidence obtained in the search and moved to strike it out.
The application for the search warrant was made by Sergeant James Middleton and subscribed and sworn to by him. The warrant was addressed to Sergeant Middleton but it recited it was issued upon 'written information which has been signed and sworn to by Sergeant S. Ralph Warnken'. It is conceded that 'S. Ralph Warnken' is not a member of the Police Force but an Associate Judge of the Supreme Bench. The warrant directed Sergeant Middleton to search a certain Pontiac automobile titled in the name of one Kennard, the brother-in-law of the appellant. A few days later, Sergeant Middleton and another officer intercepted the automobile while it was being operated by the appellant, showed him the warrant and proceeded to make the search. It is conceded that Howard was lawfully operating and in possession of the automobile. The search disclosed lottery slips and money in 'the compartment where the radio would normally be.'
Section 306, Article 27 of the Code, as enacted by Chapter 749, Acts of 1939, ( Chapter 81, Acts of 1950 in particulars not here relevant) provides, in part: 'Whenever it be made to appear to any judge * * * by a writing signed and sworn to by the applicant, that there is probable cause, the basis of which shall be set forth in said writing, to believe that any misdemeanor or felony is being committed * * *, then such judge * * * may forthwith issue a search warrant * * * provided that any such search warrant shall name or describe, with reasonable particularity, the individual, building, apartment, premise, place or thing to be searched, the grounds for such search and the name of the applicant on whose written application as aforesaid the warrant was issued * * *.'
The warrant did not contain the name of the applicant on whose written application the warrant was issued. The trial judge referred to the omission, or misstatement, as a clerical or 'typographical' error, and seemed to regard it as immaterial. We cannot so regard it. Not only is the requirement stated specifically and unequivocally in the statute, but it was obviously designed to afford information to the accused as to the name of the accuser. While we have found no Maryland case directly in point, it was held in Mazer v. State, 179 Md. 293, 303, 18 A.2d 217, that a warrant reciting that probable cause was found by the affiant rather than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. State
...Aaron certifies that both he and Berman subscribed and swore to their respective statements. Tucker leans heavily on Howard v. State, 199 Md. 529, 87 A.2d 161 (1952), but in our judgment the case at bar is clearly distinguishable. In Howard the warrant recited that it had been issued upon '......
-
People v. McKinstry
...federal cases or state cases looking to that early federal case law for precedent. E.g., King, 282 F.2d 398; Howard v. State, 199 Md. 529, 87 A.2d 161 (1952); Hay v. Commonwealth, 432 S.W.2d 641 (1968). Not only has the federal rule been changed but the pre-amendment state of the law regard......
-
American Tel. and Tel. Co. v. State Dept. of Assessments and Taxation
... ... See NCR Corp. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 313 Md. 118, 125, 544 A.2d 764, 767 (1988); Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 305 Md. 145, 161, 501 A.2d 1307, 1315 (1986); Demory Bros., Inc. v ... ...
-
King v. United States, 8075.
...States v. Keleher, 1924, 55 App.D.C. 132, 2 F.2d 934; and the defendant should be apprised of the name of that person, Howard v. State, 1952, 199 Md. 529, 87 A.2d 161. When the affiant is cloaked in secrecy there is no one who can be held Another reason for naming the affiant is to enable a......