Reed v. Rice
| Decision Date | 24 June 1829 |
| Citation | 25 Ky. 44 |
| Parties | Reed, & c. v. Rice. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Constable. Search Warrant. Justification. Constitution.
ERROR TO THE MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT; SILAS W. ROBBINS, JUDGE.
Haggin and Loughborough, for plaintiffs.
T. T Crittenden, for defendants.
Rice instituted an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, against Reed and others, and gave in evidence that they came to the place of his residence and seized and carried away sundry slaves there found.
The defendants justified upon the following grounds, sct: Berry administrator of Hamilton, obtained a search warrant, directed to the sheriff or any constable of Bath county, requiring the officer to search for and take the slaves alleged to have been stolen, if to be found in the possession of Rice, and to bring him and them before the justice who issue the warrant, or some other. The warrant was placed in Reed's hands, he being a constable. He summoned the other defendants, Berry excepted, to go with him to execute the warrant. Reed, Berry and the other defendants, went to the residence of Rice, and seized the slaves and took them, but did not take Rice. The defendants insist they did no more than was their duty for the purpose of executing the warrant.
These facts were set forth in appropriate pleas. Rice admitted the warrant in his replication, and denied the residue of the justification relied on. Issue was also made upon the plea of not guilty. Upon the trial the warrant was read and evidence given on the part of the defendants, conducing to show that Reed, as constable, summoned the defendants, except Berry. to assist him, and that he and they, with Berry, went to the residence of Rice, there found the slaves mentioned in the warrant, took them and carried them before a justice of the peace. The wife and sister of Rice seized some of the negroes, who were taken from them; they screamed, and the scene was one of some confusion. It lasted not more than an hour.
The evidence being closed, on both sides, the court on the application of the plaintiff's counsel, instructed the jury that the search warrant was illegal and afforded no defence to the defendants. Whether the court was right, constitutes the main question in the record, for our decision. The warrant issued, upon information given, on oath, by the defendant Berry, that the slaves, consisted of a woman and four children, had been stolen and carried away from the residence of his intestate, and that he believed they were, at the date of the warrant, in the possession of Rice. The slaves were described by names and age, in the warrant, with the exception of an infant child. The mandatory part of the warrant was in these words: " These are, therefore, in the name of the commonwealth, to command you to search for and take the said described slaves, if they be found in said John M. Rice's possession, and bring him the said Rice, together with the said slaves, before me," & c.
It is contended that the warrant is void, because it does not describe the place to be searched. The 4th article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, is relied on to show that the place to be searched ought to be described. We are of opinion that the article referred to, has no application to this case, and that it can not affect proceedings under the authority of the states. It was not adopted as an amendment to the constitution of the United Sates, with the intent to restrict the powers of he states, but to limit the power of the United States, and to prescribe fixed rules relative to searches and seizures, under the authority of the national government.
The 4th article of the amendments to the constitution of the U. S. intended to operate upon the government of the U. S. not of the states.
The legality of the warrant, in the present case, must be tested exclusively, by the constitution and laws of this state. The 9th section of the 10th article of the constitution of Kentucky, does not require...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mejia v. City of New York
...of § 1983, confirm the reasoning and result summarized in the ALR annotation. See Watson, 3 So. at 441-42; Reed v. Rice, 25 Ky. 44, ____, 1829 WL 1312, at *3 (1829); Firestone, 38 N.W. at 886-87; Taylor v. Alexander, 6 Ohio 144, 147-48 (1833); Weatherford v. State, 31 Tex.Crim. 530, 21 S.W.......
-
Filarsky v. Delia
...protection of the law; and their legally summoned assistants, for such time as in service, are officers of the law"); Reed v. Rice, 25 Ky. 44, 46–47 (App.1829) (private individuals summoned by a constable to execute a search warrant were protected from a suit based on the invalidity of the ......
-
Filarsky v. Delia
...strong protection of the law; and their legally summoned assistants, for such time as in service, are officers of the law”); Reed v. Rice, 25 Ky. 44, 46–47 (App.1829) (private individuals summoned by a constable to execute a search warrant were protected from a suit based on the invalidity ......
-
McSherry v. Heimer
...a citizen, he incurred no liability for the trespass even though the constable had no authority to make the search, citing Reed v. Rice, 25 Ky. 44, 19 Am. Dec. 122, Firestone v. Rice, 71 Mich. 377, 38 N.W. 885, 15 Am. St. 266. The judgment is reversed and a new trial directed. ...