Peopel v. Blenz
| Decision Date | 18 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 16655.,16655. |
| Citation | 148 N.E. 249,317 Ill. 639 |
| Parties | PEOPEL v. BLENZ et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Macon County; James S. Baldwin, Judge.
Conrad Blenz and Carl Anderson were convicted of violating the Prohibition Act, and bring error.
Transferred to Appellate Court.
Redmon & Redmon and Whitley & Fitzgerald, all of Decatur, for plaintiffs in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Charles F. Evans, State's Atty., of Decatur, C. F. Mansfield, of Monticello, and Merrill F. Wehmhoff and A. R. Ivens, both of Decatur, for the People.
Plaintiffs in error, Conrad Blenz and Carl Anderson, were convicted of violation of the Prohibition Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1923, c. 43). Blenz was fined $200 on each of six counts and committed to jail for a period of 60 days on each count, and Anderson was fined $200 on each of two counts and sentenced to serve 60 days in jail on each of said counts. They bring the cause here for review, contending that the court erred in refusing to quash certain search warrants issued, by which the dwelling of Blenz was searched, and in rulings on evidence and instructions to the jury. Defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss this writ of error, or in the alternative to transfer the cause to the Appellate Court, on the ground that the offense is a misdemeanor, and that no constitutional questions have been raised. This motion was taken with the case.
[1][2] Plaintiffs in error urge in opposition to the motion that a motion was made in the trial court to quash the search warrants, and for return of the liquor seized thereunder, and that by such motion state and federal constitutional questions were raised. An examination of the briefs shows that plaintiffs in error's contention here and in the trial court is, and was, that the search warrants should be quashed and the liquor returned because the search warrants did not comply with the Prohibition Act. It was not there, and is not here, contended that a valid search warrant may not issue in such a case; nor is it contended that the provisions of the Prohibition Act, providing for the issuance of such search warrant, are invalid as violating the constitutional immunity against unreasonable search and seizure. Where a constitutional question is not first raised in the trial court it will not be considered on appeal or writ of error. People v. Berglin, 309 Ill. 488, 141 N. E. 295;Chicago-Sandoval Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 301 Ill. 389, 134 N. E. 158;Cummings v. People, 211 Ill. 392, 71 N. E. 1031. The mere fact that the state and federal Constitutions guarantee immunity from unreasonable search and seizure is not of itself sufficient to show that a constitutional question is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Valentine
...for the purpose of passing on constitutional questions long settled, White v. Youngblood, 367 Ill. 632, 12 N.E.2d 650; People v. Blenz, 317 Ill. 639, 148 N.E. 249. It does not follow that the constitutional issues are genuine or substantial because an attorney on appeal may base his case on......
-
People v. Watkins
...older decisions transferring illegal search cases to the Appellate Court. See People v. Hord, 329 Ill. 117, 160 N.E. 135; People v. Blenz, 317 Ill. 639, 148 N.E. 249. It is based, however, on the assumption that the boundaries of the protection provided by the unreasonable search and seizur......
- Leininger v. Reichle
-
Spaulding School Dist. No. 58 v. Waukegan City School Dist. No. 61
...378 Ill. 385, 38 N.E.2d 1; People v. Martens, 338 Ill. 170, 170 N.E. 275; People v. Hord, 329 Ill. 117, 160 N.E. 135; People v. Blenz, 317 Ill. 639, 148 N.E. 249. My sympathy goes out to counsel in a recent case who tried to reconcile the two lines of cases and concluded that he 'could not ......