People v. Prall
| Decision Date | 16 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 16207.,16207. |
| Citation | 145 N.E. 610,314 Ill. 518 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. PRALL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Stephenson County; Oscar E. Heard, Judge
Robert R. Prall was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.Douglas Pattison and Ray T. Luney, both of Freeport, for plaintiff in error.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty Gen., Charles H. Green, State's Atty., of Freeport, and Virgil L. Blanding, of Springfield, for the People.
July 12, 1923, C., M. & St. P. car No. 202587 was loaded at Racine, Wis., by the Ajax Rubber Company with Ajax casings and tubes for shipment to that company at Oklahoma City, Okl. The car arrived in Freeport about 8 o'clock a. m. July 14 and was placed on a side track just outside the city limits, where it remained all day. About 7:30 o'clock p. m. a deputy sheriff responded to a call concerning the car and found that the seal had been broken and ten casings removed from the car and thrown into the weeds along the right of way. He concealed himself in the car and shortly thereafter he saw plaintiff in error Robert R. Prall and Albert Eberle walking along the track in the direction of the casings that were lying in the weeds. The deputy sheriff moved his position in the car so that he could see what the two men were doing and in moving made a noise, which attracted the attention of the men, whereupon they turned and walked toward the car and the deputy sheriff placed them under arrest. Plaintiff in error operates a taxi business in the city of Freeport and had driven his automobile to a point on the highway near the railroad crossing and near where the railroad car was standing and had left it there. When the deputy sheriff returned to the car with the two men he found Fred Eberle near by. The three men were taken to the county jail. A search warrant was issued and Prall's house was searched. In the basement there were found two new Ajax casings and twelve new Ajax tubes. All the men were indicted, the indictment containing counts charging burglary, larceny, and receiving stolen property. The state's attorney nolle prossed the indictment against Fred Eberle. The other two men were placed on trial, and Albert Eberle was acquitted and plaintiff in error was found guilty of receiving stolen property. This writ of error is prosecuted to review the judgment entered on the verdict.
[1] The first point made is with respect to the action of the court in denying the petition of plaintiff in error to return to him the casings and tubes seized at his home, on the ground that the complaint on which the search warrant issued did not show reasonable cause for issuing the warrant, and on the further ground that the complaint and warrant did not describe particularly the property to be seized. This court has held that such an inquiry may be made (People v. Castree, 311 Ill. 392, 143 N. E. 112, 32 A. L. R. 357), and reference is made to the opinion filed in that case for a discussion of the question.
The complaint is made by the sheriff of the county, who says that a ‘certain number of automobile tires and tubes' were stolen by Prall and others and that he believes that the stolen goods are concealed in Prall's dwelling house, and that the reasons for said belief are the following:
‘That a large number of automobile tires and tubes were found lying in the weeds alongside the railroad track of the said company, near a car partly filled with tires and tubes, by a deputy sheriff; that Rebert R. Prall at night left his automobile in the highway and went into said weeds and was about to pick up a tire when arrested by deputy sheriff, and was anxious to telephone home.’
Section 6 of the Bill of Rights provides:
‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’
[2][3] Whether there is probable cause for issuing the warrant is a judicial question, to be determined by the magistrate before whom complaint is made. The testimony on which the magistrate acts must be reduced to writing, incorporated in a formal complaint and verified by affidavit. This complaint must state the facts constituting the crime and the facts on which the complainant bases his belief that the articles sought to be seized are concealed by the defendant, with sufficient definiteness, so that, if it is false, perjury may be assigned on the affidavit. Lippman v. People, 175 Ill. 101, 51 N. E. 872;Myers v. People, 67 Ill. 503.
[4] The complaint on which the search warrant was issued in this case did not contain a statement of facts, supported by affidavit, which warranted a finding that there was probable cause to believe that stolen property was concealed in the home of plaintiff in error. It is not stated in the complaint that the automobile tires found lying alongside the railroad track had been stolen from the railroad car, nor that there were more tires stolen from the railroad car than were found along the track. in other words, there is no statement in the complaint which furnished a basis for the conclusion that plaintiff in error had in his home certain tires stolen from this car. The fact that plaintiff in error left his automobile in the highway and walked to the place where these tires were lying in the weeds does not furnish a basis for concluding that tires had been stolen from the railroad car and removed by plaintiff in error to his home.
[5] The most serious defect, however, is the want of particular description of the property sought to be seized. The warrant issued to the sheriff described the property as ‘certain automobile tires and tubes,’ and directed the sheriff to search the premises of plaintiff in error for ‘said stolen goods and chattles.’ In the case of stolen property which can be readily described, the Constitution requires a descriptionsufficiently particular to identify the articles sought to be seized. Frost v. People, 193 Ill. 635, 61 N. E. 1054,86 Am. St. Rep. 352. A minute and detailed description of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arregui
...affiant's information. (United States v. Keleher (D. C. App.), 2 F.2d 934; People v. Elias, 316 Ill. 376, 147 N.E. 472; People v. Prall, 314 Ill. 518, 145 N.E. 610; Goode v. Commonwealth, 199 Ky. 755, 252 S.W. State v. Quartier, 114 Ore. 657, 236 P. 746.) Where evidence is obtained by means......
-
Monroe v. Pape
...68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436; 38 S.H.Ill.Ann.Stats. § 691 et seq.; People v. Elias, 316 Ill. 376, 381, 147 N.E. 472; People v. Prall, 314 Ill. 518, 522, 145 N. E. 610. 31 See notes 23 and 24, supra. 32 See note 28; People v. Grod, 385 Ill. 584, 592, 53 N.E.2d 591 (under both the United States......
-
Wallace v. State
...103 Mass. 448;Commonwealth v. Schwartz (1923) 82 Pa. Super. Ct. 369, 375;Chipman v. Bates, 15 Vt. 51, 40 Am. Dec. 663;People v. Prall, 314 Ill. 518, 115 N. E. 610;Zimmerman v. Bedford (1922) 134 Va. 787, 115 S. E. 362;State v. Lock (1924) 302 Mo. 400, 259 S. W. 116;Cravens v. State (1923) 1......
-
Wallace v. State
... ... must be strictly construed in favor of the constitutional ... right of the people. p. 327 ... 7 ... SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.---Constitutional guaranty must be ... liberally construed.---The constitutional ... Schwartz (1923), 82 Pa.Super. 369, 375; ... Chipman v. Bates (1843), 15 Vt. 51, 40 Am ... Dec. 663; People v. Prall (1925), 314 Ill ... 518, 145 N.E. 610; Zimmerman v. Bedford ... (1922), 134 Va. 787, 115 S.E. 362; State v ... Lock (1924), 302 Mo ... ...