People v. Wiedeman
| Decision Date | 23 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 17731.,17731. |
| Citation | 154 N.E. 432,324 Ill. 66 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WIEDEMAN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Saline County Court; John W. Browning, Judge.
Florence Stone Wiedeman was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and she brings error.
Reversed.
Alpheus Gustin, of Harrisburg, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Charles T. Flota, State's Atty., of Harrisburg, and Roy D. Johnson, of Quincy (K. C. Ronalds, of Eldorado, of counsel), for the People.
A warrant to search for intoxicating liquors in a building occupied by plaintiff in error was issued April 6, 1926, upon a complaint stating, as a basis for the belief, that intoxicating liquors were unlawfully possessed, that complainant had purchased ‘several drinks of white mule and home brew in said residence on or about March 30, 1926, and also on or about April 3, 1926.’ It is not stated on what day the warrant came into the hands of the sheriff of Saline county, but presumably it was delivered to him at once. The warrant was served April 12, 1926, and several bottles of beer were seized. Plaintiff in error was brought to trial before the county court of Saline county upon an information filed by the state's attorney. Prior to the taking of testimony plaintiff in error filed a verified petition to quash the search warrant and impound the beer seized thereunder, contending that, in the absence of a showing justifying the delay, the officer's authority to search and arrest under the warrant did not continue for six days and had expired at the time of the arrest. The petition was denied, and the beer was received in evidence against her. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and she now prosecutes this writ of error to review the judgment entered thereon.
[1][2] When in any process, or in the law authorizing it, no time within which the process must be executed and returned is named, the process must be executed within a reasonable time from its issuance, and becomes functus officio thereafter. If this is not true, the time within which such a process may be executed is unlimited and it never becomes functus officio, no matter how long its execution is delayed. Ministerial officers assuming to execute judicial process upon the person or property of a citizen must execute it promptly and precisely. This is especially true of a search warrant, which is a powerful police weapon. The qualities which make it efficient as an aid to enforcing the law make it dangerous when abused. The danger of its use as an instrument of oppression fixed itself so firmly upon the minds of the founders of this government that they erected constitutional barriers against it. Section 6 of article 2 of our Constitution provides that——
‘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.’
The nature of the search warrant indicates that it shall, when issued, be promptly executed. There is nothing in the law concerning them which indicates that the warrant may be held by the officer as a weapon, to be used at his discretion. The Legislature has recognized this necessity of the immediate execution of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shinohara
...(West 2002). Relying upon People v. Van Note, 63 Ill.App.3d 53, 55, 20 Ill.Dec. 1, 379 N.E.2d 834 (1978), and People v. Wiedeman, 324 Ill. 66, 69, 154 N.E. 432 (1926), defendant argues that "[t]he purpose of the 96-hour rule is to prevent interference with defendant's property rights." We f......
-
U.S. v. Bedford
...upon the part of the executing authorities. See, e. g., People v. Fetsko, 332 Ill. 110, 163 N.E. 359, 360 (1928); People v. Wiedeman, 324 Ill. 66, 154 N.E. 432 (1926); State v. Guthrie, 90 Me. 448, 38 A. 368 (1897); State v. Miller, 329 Mo. 855, 46 S.W.2d 541, 542 (1932). As the court state......
-
Com. v. Cromer
...397 U.S. 1002, 90 S.Ct. 1149, 25 L.Ed.2d 412 (1970); United States v. Harper, 450 F.2d 1032, 1043 (5th Cir. 1971); People v. Wiedeman, 324 Ill. 66, 68, 154 N.E. 432 (1926); State v. Guthrie, 90 Me. 448, 452, 38 A. 368 (1897). We believe that § 2A should also be construed to require executio......
-
Mitchell v. United States
...conditions, may cause a court to consider a warrant to have been executed forthwith, despite some delay,6 State v. Guthrie, supra; People v. Wiedeman, supra; but delay occasioned merely by the officer's assumption of authority to select the time of execution does vitiate the warrant. Even t......