Johnson v. State
| Citation | 299 S.W. 800,155 Tenn. 628 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1927 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
Appeal in Error from Circuit Court, Bradley County; John J. Blair Judge.
Bill Johnson was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals in error. Reversed and remanded.
The Attorney General, for the State.
The plaintiff in error, Bill Johnson, was convicted in the circuit court of Bradley county for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and has appealed to this court.
The principal question made by the assignments of error is that the trial judge erred in admitting in evidence testimony with regard to a search of the home of the plaintiff in error and the finding of whisky by the parties making the search without requiring the state to offer in evidence the search warrant under which the search was made.
The facts are that Homer Allen, a policeman of Cleveland, made an affidavit before a commissioner of the District Court of the United States, upon which affidavit the commissioner issued a warrant for the search of the premises of the plaintiff in error. This warrant was placed in the hands of a deputy marshal of the United States, and was executed by him, with the aid of Policeman Allen. The sheriff of the county was present at the search at the request of Allen and the deputy marshal, but he testified that he took no actual part in the search.
The plaintiff in error called for the production of the search warrant as authority for the search, and as a condition precedent to the introduction of evidence of the result of the search. It was made to appear that the original warrant and affidavit were lost, and that a duplicate preserved by the United States commissioner had been forwarded to the clerk of the United States District Court at Chattanooga where it presumably is now on file. No effort appears to have been made to secure this duplicate affidavit and warrant for use on the trial of this case, nor was a certified copy thereof offered in evidence.
The trial judge ruled that, under the facts stated, it was not necessary to introduce the search warrant or prove its existence, when state or municipal officers accompany a federal officer.
This ruling would be correct if the state and municipal officers in the present case had merely stood by and witnessed the result of a search carried on by agents of the government of the United States, acting under the authority of the United States. If a violation of a state law is disclosed by federal officers acting solely under the authority of the federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial