Jones v. State

• Decision Date: 03 April 1923
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 812.
• Citation: 19 Ala.App. 232,96 So. 721
• Parties: JONES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

96 So. 721

19 Ala.App. 232

JONES v. STATE.

7 Div. 812.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 3, 1923

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Bob Jones was convicted of having prohibited liquors in his possession, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Isbell & Scott, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

There are but two questions presented. The defendant was arrested without warrant or other process and from him was taken a suit case, which, upon being opened, was found to contain two gallons of corn whisky. It is insisted on the part of the defendant that the arrest was illegal and that he was forced to give evidence against himself, in violation of his constitutional rights, secured to him under sections 5 and 6 of the Bill of Rights, contained in the Constitution of Alabama.

Throughout many centuries our English ancestors struggled for the preservation of their liberties which were embraced in the laws and customs of the people. Long before Magna Charta was signed by King John, as recorded by Dr. Johnson in his history of Magna Charta, the houses and persons of the freemen of England were secure from unreasonable search and seizure, and through each succeeding reign from Harold to the present time the king, recognizing the doctrine that he held office by the consent of his people, was required to take oath to preserve the liberties, laws, and customs of the people of England. With such jealousy were they guarded that says Dr. Johnson, "our laws triumph in this, that they passed through all the British, Roman, Danish, Saxon, and Norman times, with little or no alteration in the main." Johnson's History, M. C. p. 4.

But these laws and liberties have not been preserved without great effort and sacrifice both of treasure and of life, to such an extent it may be truthfully asserted they were established and maintained in the blood of a liberty loving people, who preferred to die rather than become serfs and slaves of the king and his court. The right of search and seizure, even under warrant, was never recognized under the ancient common law and as late as the time of Lord Coke (4 Inst. 176) the legality of search warrants, before indictment, was denied, and only came into existence during a later time in England almost unnoticed as a "police weapon" to be used most carefully lest it wound the security or liberty of the citizen. Buckley v. Beaulieu et al., 104 Me. 56, 71 A. 70, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 819. In 1766 the petition of 1,565 freeholders of Middlesex contains, among other wrongs enumerated, that ...