McMahan's Administratrix v. Draffen
| Decision Date | 15 March 1932 |
| Citation | 242 Ky. 785 |
| Parties | McMahan's Administratrix v. Draffen et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Searches and Seizures. — Fourth Amendment to Federal Constitution does not limit power of states (Const. U.S., Amend. 4).
Const. U.S., Amend. 4, is limitation on power of federal government, and not a limitation on power of respective states.
2. Searches and Seizures. — State constitution limits power of state to authorize, and of its officers to engage in, search for and seizure of evidence of crime (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
3. Searches and Seizures. — Officer executing search warrant regularly issued and legal on its face is not concerned with its illegality, as regards liability for illegal search (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
4. Searches and Seizures. — Search must be justified on steps preceding it, not by what is found (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
5. Searches and Seizures. — To be valid, search warrant must contain description of place, person, or thing to be searched or seized with such certainty as reasonably identifies it (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
6. Searches and Seizures. — Description of place to be searched need not be as certain and specific as in deed (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
7. Searches and Seizures. — Search warrant must be directed to officer and authorize him to search place, person, or thing therein described (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
8. Searches and Seizures. — Officer executing search warrant must know with certainty he is searching premises, thing, or person warrant authorized and directed him to search (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
9. Searches and Seizures. — Officer may thoroughly search every part of premises described in warrant occupied by owner or occupant named therein where it is likely that object searched for may be found (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
10. Searches and Seizures. — Valid search warrant does not confer on officer authority to make unreasonable search Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
In executing valid search warrant officer must not only be considerate of comfort and convenience and feelings of person or occupants of premises at time of search, but must not exceed or abuse his authority with which he is clothed and under which he is acting.
11. Searches and Seizures. — Whether conduct of officer executing search warrant was reasonable must be determined by all facts and circumstances in particular case (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
No definite rule fixing line of demarcation applicable in every case can be stated in advance by which it may be determined whether search was reasonable or unreasonable under valid search warrant.
12. Searches and Seizures. — Officer executing search warrant may not unnecessarily injure feelings of defendants or unnecessarily mar premises searched (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
13. Searches and Seizures. — When officer executing valid search warrant exceeds or abuses authority, thereby infringing on owner's or occupant's constitutional rights, officer and bondsmen are liable in trespass for damages to such occupant (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
14. Searches and Seizures. — In action for unreasonable search under valid search warrant, question is conduct, not motive, of officer, except as to assessment of damages (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
15. Searches and Seizures. — If search or seizure was made by officer under color of office without search warrant or under void search warrant, he, but not his bondsman, is liable for compensatory damages, and, if acts were willful, malicious, or wanton, for punitive damages (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10.)
Officer's acts and conduct under such conditions and circumstances are regarded as his individual acts for himself, and not for the state, and he alone, and not his bond, is liable therefor.
16. Searches and Seizures. — Good faith of officer will not justify search without warrant or under void search warrant (Constitutucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
Good faith of officer, or that he was acting in full belief and with reason to believe that evidence of crime sought or desired was present on premises searched, will not justify search without search warrant, or under void search warrant, of another's premises, person, or things, but, at most, his good faith may be regarded only in mitigation of damages.
17. Searches and Seizures. — Forcing way and searching different or adjoining house to that described in warrant constitutes illegal search (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
18. Searches and Seizures. — Searching portion of house occupied by person not named in warrant constitutes illegal search (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
19. Sheriffs and Constables. — Constable and deputy constables who, under valid search warrant, knowingly searched portion of premises occupied by person not named in warrant held individually liable in damages, but sureties were not liable (Constitution Kentucky, Bill of Rights, sec. 10).
Since search warrant authorized and directed officers to search only premises in control and possession of person named therein, but officers searched a tenant's portion of the premises, the officers, who had knowledge that such portion of premises was not under control or possession of person named in warrant, and yet willfully searched such rooms, were liable in damages to person in possession, but their sureties were not liable since such search was trespass they committed as individuals, and was not official act of officers.
Appeal from McCracken Circuit Court.
CROSSLAND & CROSSLAND for appellant.
BEN S. ADAMS for appellees.
Affirming.
This appeal requires a consideration and review of section 10 of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, and the application thereof to the facts alleged in the appellant's petition as amended.
In November, 1929, Chris McMahan resided in house No. 441 South Third street, Paducah, Ky., located at the corner of Third and Adams streets. J.T. Powers was an elected and acting constable of the first district of McCracken county, Ky.
The Fidelity & Guaranty Company of New York was the surety on his bond which was conditioned that "in all things Powers shall faithfully and truly execute and perform the said office of constable during his continuance therein."
Charles Winnegar was an elected and qualified constable of the Sixth district of McCracken county, Ky. After he entered upon the duties of his office, K.B. Williams was appointed a deputy to Winnegar. Williams executed bond to the commonwealth with Mrs. J.R. Draffen as his surety, conditioned as provided by law.
Charles Ross, by consent of J.T. Powers, was appointed deputy constable. He executed bond to the commonwealth, with the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York as his surety, conditioned as provided by law. The election and qualification of Powers are set out in the petition. The appointment and qualification of Ross and Williams by the county court of McCracken county are also set out by the necessary allegations. It was charged in the petition that Powers, Williams, and Ross, while acting under color of office, without the knowledge or consent of Chris McMahan, forcibly and with violence, broke the doors and windows of his home, and maliciously and wrongfully entered therein and proceeded to search for spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors. In an amended petition it was charged that, at the time they did so, they were executing a search warrant issued and placed in their hands by a justice of peace of McCracken county, directing them to search the house of one "Keeling, located at the corner of Third & Adams Streets in Paducah, which house was No. 441 S. Third Street; . . . that McMahan's place was not mentioned in the warrant as the place to be searched," that he occupied a portion of the house as a tenant, which was under his control and in his possession, and that the officers were informed and knew that McMahan occupied the rooms and had them in his possession, and that "Keeling had no power or use over same, but notwithstanding this knowledge, they wrongfully, illegally and without right searched his premises."
A demurrer was filed to the petition and amended petition which was overruled as to Powers, Ross, and Williams, but sustained as to the sureties on the bond — Draffen and the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. McMahan declined to plead further and elected to stand by his petition, which was dismissed as to Draffen and the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. Thereafter Chris McMahan departed this life, and the administratrix of his estate asked permission to revive the action in her name. The court declined to permit it to be revived.
She is here insisting the constitutional rights of her decedent were unlawfully interrupted, and that the privacy of his home was invaded by officers, and that both the officers and their bonds are liable to his estate for the resulting damages.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not presented for consideration. The Fourth Amendment is a limitation on the power of the federal government and not a limitation on the power of the repective states. The state Constitution is a limitation on the state to authorize, and its officers to engage in a search for, and seizure of, evidence of crime. Reed v. Rice, 2 J.J. Marsh. 44, 19 Am. Dec. 122; Brent v. Com., 194 Ky. 504, 240 S.W. 45; Walters v. Com., 199 Ky. 182, 250 S.W. 839; Chapman v. Com., 206 Ky. 439, 267 S.W. 181; State v. District Court of Eighteenth Judicial Dist. in and for Hill County, 82 Mont. 515, 268 P. 501; State v. Gooder (S.D.) 234 N.W....
To continue reading
Request your trial