People v. Savanna Lodge No. 1095, Loyal Order of Moose

• Decision Date: 27 November 1950
• Docket Number: No. 31591,31591
• Citation: 407 Ill. 227,95 N.E.2d 328
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SAVANNA LODGE NO. 1095, LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 328

95 N.E.2d 328

407 Ill. 227

PEOPLE v. SAVANNA LODGE NO. 1095, LOYAL ORDER OF MOOSE.

No. 31591.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 27, 1950.

Ralph M. Eaton, of Mount Carroll, for plaintiff in error.

Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., of Springfield, and Lawrence A. Smith, of Savanna (Harry L. Pate, of Tuscola, of counsel), for the People.

SIMPSON, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Savanna Lodge No. 1095, Loyal Order of Moose, a corporation, was found guilty by the circuit court of Carroll County of possessing slot machines contrary to the statute, and was fined therefor. It seeks a reversal of that judgment by writ of error in this court.

A search warrant was procured by the State's Attorney upon his verified complaint and the premises were searched, revealing possession of the slot machines in question. Plaintiff in error claims its constitutional rights, both State and Federal, were violated through improper search and seizure based upon an insufficient showing for the issuance of the warrant. It says the complaint was based upon information and belief of affiant and was too remote in period of time after knowledge of the information contained therein was obtained.

The complaint recited that certain gambling apparatus and implements were used, kept and provided to be used in unlawful gaming, to-wit: certain slot machines upon which money is staked and hazarded and into which money is paid and played upon chance and upon the result of the action of which said slot machines money is hazarded and won or lost, and now possessed and used in a certain building and place resorted to for the purpose of unlawful gaming in said city, county and State, and that complainant has just and reasonable grounds to believe and does believe that said gaming apparatus and implements are now concealed in said building and place. The complaint then describes the premises and recites that the premises are occupied by and in possession of plaintiff in error.

Continuing, the complaint then recites the reasons for the belief of the affiant and says in substance that affiant knew of his own knowledge that in the month of July, 1948, plaintiff in error paid to the government of the United States of America the requisite fee for a Federal license or permit to possess and operate slot machines upon which money is staked and hazarded and upon which money is paid and played upon chance, and upon the result of the action of which said slot machines money is hazarded and won or lost, etc.; that the Government, through the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue, issued to plaintiff in error a license or permit to possess and operate coin operated slot machines for gaming upon the premises in question, and that said license or permit at all times since the month of July, 1948, was and is in full force and effect, all as shown in 'Gaming Record 10' in and of the records of the government of the United States of America in the office of said Collector of Internal Revenue, and that the affiant had personal knowledge of said record, having read and examined it. A search warrant issued upon this complaint, and under it certain solt machines, with the contents thereof, were seized.

Plaintiff in error moved to impound the exhibits and to suppress the evidence with relation thereto, which motion was overruled by the court and the machines were received in evidence. Error is assigned on this ruling of the court. Neither in...